Preamble

The House met at Twelve of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Gas and Water Provisional Orders Bill,

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.

Gas Provisional Orders Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

BILL PRESENTED.

NAURU ISLAND AGREEMENT BILL,

"to confirm an Agreement made between His Majesty's Government in London, His Majesty's Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, and His Majesty's Government of the Dominion of New Zealand in relation to the Island of Nauru," presented by Colonel LESLIE; WILSON; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 138.]

HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — READY MONEY FOOTBALL BETTING BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Penalties.)

Any person who in the United Kingdom writes, prints, publishes, or knowingly circulates any advertisement, circular, or coupon of any ready money football betting business, whether such business is carried on in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, or who causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, any of those things to be done, or assists therein, shall be liable—

(a) for a first offence, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding three months;
(b) for a second offence, on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding six months;
(c) for a third or subsequent offence, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding twelve months.

Mr. REMER: had given notice of an Amendment to leave out Clause 1.

Mr. SPEAKER: The first Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Macclesfield is out of order. He cannot move to omit the Clause, which is practically the whole Bill. The second Amendment, I think, is in order.

Mr. REMER: I desire to move to leave out the word "coupon."
I cannot see what effect this word has in this Bill. It might have very serious consequences in other directions. I am not at all sure that it might not have even the effect of destroying the last General Election, and have several other results of an equally disadvantageous character. To put in the word "coupon" here is very dangerous. It will have serious effects on other things than the betting business, and to deal with this one type of coupon and not deal with coupons that refer to other things is a mistake.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that the Clause would read if this Amendment
were carried. It would be necessary first, after the word "advertisement," to insert the word "or."

Mr. REMER: I beg to move after the word "advertisement" to insert the word "or."

Colonel Sir HENRY NORRIS: I cannot understand why this Amendment has been moved, unless it be to confess on the part of the hon. Member an ignorance which is foreign to every other Member of the House. "Coupon" is a word which is well understood by all those who have any knowledge of football and the coupon betting which this Bill is introduced to prevent. I have in my hand one of the circulars or coupons, as the word is generally understood, and it is used by the whole of the various bookmakers throughout the country. I cannot understand the object of leaving out the word. It certainly does not do any harm, and the suggestion that the word "coupon" as applied to this Bill is synonymous with the word "coupon" as applied to candidates at an election is of a piece with the whole argument of the hon. Member. I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment.

Mr. HOGGE: I hope that the House will not agree to this Amendment. The hon. Member has given no reason for leaving out the word. This word does cover the most effective instrument of destroying the game of football in this country. If my hon. Friend knows anything about the efforts of the Football Association for many years to keep the game as purely a sport as possible, he will see that it would destroy the object of this Bill to leave out the word, and would weaken the effectiveness of the law in dealing with this matter.

Mr. MARRIOTT: The object of this Amendment is to destroy the effect of the Bill. On that ground I must oppose it very strongly. I have had many communications from my constituents and others in this matter. I believe that all pure and keen sportsmen are anxious to pass the Bill, and therefore I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next two Amendments, which deal with horse racing and golf, are out of order, as they are beyond the scope of the Bill.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): I beg to move, to leave out paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), and to insert instead thereof the words
on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds or imprisonment for not exceeding one month or, in case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or imprisonment for not exceeding three months.
I move this Amendment with a view to simplifying the penalties, and I do not think that any explanation is required. The penalties which are now proposed are less complicated than those at present specified in the Bill, and I think that they are equally effective.

Sir H. NORRIS: I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

Mr. HOGGE: I notice the Bill uses the expression "with or without hard labour." If a man persists in trying to break down this machinery, and can avoid it always by payment of a fine, that fine will almost invariably be provided out of the money he makes. There ought to be some other restraint accompanied with or without hard labour when the offence is repeated ad libitum.

Mr. REMER: On a point of Order. I have two Amendments later dealing with this point. Ought I to move them now?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the House accept this Amendment, of course the hon. Member's Amendments will be cut out.

Mr. REMER: Can I move an Amendment to the Amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER: When we have got the words struck out, and the words proposed to be inserted become substantive, then the hon. Member can move an Amendment to them.

Major BAIRD: I am advised that "with or without hard labour" is a phrase which is put into certain Acts as a consequential phrase, but it has no effect so far as the passing of sentence is concerned. I believe that is perfectly correct.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: I think the penalties upon anyone guilty of an offence for the first time are unduly excessive. There is no doubt that this Bill is legislating far ahead of the present state of public opinion. It is making illegal and harmful something which at present the great bulk of the population rightly regard
as legal, and rightly or wrongly regard as harmless. It is class legislation and piecemeal legislation. What moral differentiation can be drawn between coupons issued by a betting tout and those issued by newspapers? In the very narrow definition of a betting business later on in the Bill it is clear that coupons issued by newspapers will be absolutely immune from the penalties attached to this offence. I think the public have a right to ask why it is that that differentiation has been drawn. Why are we to regard it as immoral to have bets upon football and as perfectly moral to—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is discussing the general principles of the Bill. We are not concerned with that now, but with the question of penalties.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: The point I wanted to make is that it is quite clear, in the present state of public opinion, that this offence of betting on football is regarded as an absolutely venial one, and that when you are making a new offence by Act of Parliament the penalty for a first commission of such offence should be as light as possible. It is clear that the working man who is going to be penalised by this Bill cannot regard his betting on football as being in any way worse than the betting of the rich man on the Derby or the boat race or anything else. That being so, it seems to me unfair to the particular class singled out for this penal legislation to impose such a penalty as imprisonment for a first offence.

Mr. REMER: I associate myself with the views of my hon. and gallant Friend. It seems to me utterly ridiculous that a man should be liable to a penalty of imprisonment with hard labour simply because he puts a shilling on a coupon or on a football match. I think it is against the liberty of the subject. The penalty is altogether too severe. Working people in this country do not know that this legislation, with the penalties proposed, is likety to be inflicted upon them.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is really not relevant to the question now before the House. It will be relevant to the hon. Member's Amendment when we reach it. The Amendment now before us is to strike out all penalties. With that the hon. Member will probably agree.

Question. "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Mr. REMER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "twenty-five pounds" and to insert instead thereof the words "one pound".

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. Everybody knows that this type of betting is confined entirely to working people, and if the Bill be passed as proposed by the Government, it means that we are going to impose upon working people penalties which do not exist in the case of absolutely analogous offences committed by those who are richer. I remember during the war, when I was on board a troopship, we were all playing in the officers' mess a game of bridge for money, the ship's adjutant was sent for and asked in great perturbation to go and stop the men below from playing "crown and anchor." That struck me as an instance of class legislation. This Bill is another.

Major HAMILTON: The Mover and Seconder of this Amendment do not appear to have read the Bill. So far as I can see there is no penalty imposed on any working men who indulges in betting. The penalty is imposed on the person who writes, prints, publishes or circulates, or touts for people to bet. Surely that is not class legislation. I am opposed to class legislation, and I have undertaken to criticise this Bill wherever in my opinion it appears to be unfair to working men to want to put their shillings on football, as compared with my hon. and gallant Friend's plunging on the Derby. The Clause uses the words "circulates any advertisement." That may catch the newspaper proprietors. I hope it will.

Mr. WIGNALL: This Amendment reduces the whole thing to an absolute farce. If the thing is wrong it is wrong, and to impose a penalty of a pound is simply playing with the whole business. The question of the working man always comes in when it suits a purpose. I think that even a £25 penalty is very small, because the people who are engaged in this business are out to make money, and such
penalties do not deter them. Even penalties of £50 on betting organisations do not do so, and as soon as the penalty is imposed the money is on the table. I think the proposed penalty is too small.

Mr. SEDDON: I wish to associate myself with my hon. Friend who has just spoken, and to make an emphatic protest against the two speeches in support of this Amendment, and the dragging in of the working man who is not touched by any stretch of imagination. The Bill merely deals with that class of people who issue, publish or circulate those coupons. As far as I am concerned, instead of reducing the fine I should be delighted to see it increased to £100. I repeat my protest against the dragging in of the working man as a kind of cheap notoriety, because he is not touched by this Bill.

Mr. PERRING: The original Amendment states that the fine shall not exceed £25, and that leaves a discretionary power in the hands of the magistrate who can inflict a small fine if the circumstances justify that. Therefore the ground is covered. It would be the utmost folly to pass this Bill if we seriously desire to stop this kind of coupon betting unless we give power to inflict a heavy fine. Many bookmakers would be willing to pay a small fine because they would still have a large profit, and any proposal of that kind would nullify the whole effect of the Bill.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I would like to have some authoritative statement as to the difference of opinion between the hon. Members who have moved and other hon. Members. According to my reading of the Bill, this penalty will only fall upon those who invite betting, and will deal with those betting touts we are exceedingly anxious to get rid of. I am as strongly opposed as any hon. Gentleman to anything in the nature of class legislation, but this does not seem to me to be of that description. The penalty is not intended to fall on a man who puts the shilling on, but on the person who incites him to do so.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I desire to support the Amendment, as I think the penalty for a first offence ought to be a light one, and that every man ought to get a chance. If we were dealing with penalties for betting generally the position would be different. This does not touch the problem of betting, but simply
deals with one phase of it and only a part of that particular phase. We see newspapers touting weekly for this sort of thing.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "or" ["twenty-five pounds or"], to insert the words "in default of payment."
The object of that is to prevent a man being imprisoned for a first offence unless he pays the fine. I do not think it right that on the first offence a man should be sent to prison for one month without option of a fine, although I am quite willing that he should go to prison for three months for a second offence; but to leave it entirely in the discretion of the curious justices who are being appointed in these days, in ho have not always the judicial mind, is, I think, a mistake.

Sir H. NORRIS: I am prepared to accept the suggested Amendment.

Question put, "That the words 'twenty-five pounds' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 4.

Division No. 134.]
AYES.
[12.31 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Gilmour, Lieut-Colonel John
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Myers, Thomas


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Baird, John Lawrence
Greig, Colonel James William
Parker, James


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Grundy, T. W.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Percy, Charles


Barnston, Major Harry
Hallas, Eldred
Perring, William George


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hanna, George Boyle
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Haslam, Lewis
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Briant, Frank
Henderson Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Royce, William Stapleton


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Seager, Sir William


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hinds, John
Seddon, J. A.


Cape, Thomas
Hogge, James Myles
Simm, M. T.


Casey, T. W.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Cautley, Henry S.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Child, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hill
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Stanton, Charles B.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Conway, Sir W. Martin
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sugden, W. H.


Coote, William (Tyrone, South)
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Sutherland, Sir William


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'st'r)


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Kenyon, Barnet
Taylor, J.


Dawes, Commander
Lindsay, William Arthur
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Lynn, R. J.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Wignall, James


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Fell, Sir Arthur
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Finney, Samuel
Mallalieu, F. W.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Foreman, Henry
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Matthews, David
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H (Norwich)


Freece, Sir Walter de
Moles, Thomas
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morgan, Major D. Watts



Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Morison, Thomas Brash
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)
Colonel Sir Henry Norris and Sir William Bull.




NOES.


Blair, Reginald
Sexton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Stevens, Marshall
Mr. Romer and Lieut.-Colonel Hurst.

Mr. REMER: Can I move to leave out all the words after the word "pounds"?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have already put the Amendment coming after the word "or." Therefore the word "pounds or" stand part.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Definition.)

Mr. REMER: I beg to move, to leave out Clause 2. I do not think the Clause is necessary in the Bill. It will lead to very great litigation and trouble, and it seems to me that this definition of what is
ready money football betting business is not desirable to be put in the Bill.

Amendment not seconded.

Motion made, and question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Sir H. Norris.]

Mr. REMER: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
I think it is a piece of class legislation, and that to attempt to pass a Bill of this kind, dealing only with football and not with the whole problem of betting, is against the interests of the country. Whether betting is good or desirable or bad is one question which ought to be dealt with as a problem by itself, and we ought not to attempt to deal with the problem of betting without rhyme or reason in one solitary game. I know of similar things which are going on in other games. I think it is desirable that this class of legislation, which I might almost describe as sentimental legislation, and which is not in the best interests of the country, should not be encouraged, especially on a Friday afternoon, when there are very few Members in this House. I think it is desirable that the problem should be dealt with as a whole. I can see no reason, and I have heard no reason, why this legislation has been brought forward, and I beg to submit that the Bill is wholly against the best interests of this country.

Amendment not seconded.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — VETERINARY SURGEONS ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Orders of the Day — PREAMBLE.

Whereas it is desirable to provide further funds for the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to enable it to conduct examinations, prosecutions, and inquiries, authorised by statute and generally to carry out such other objects or duties as may be considered beneficial to the veterinary profession and necessary for the promotion of the art and science of veterinary medicine and surgery.

Brigadier-General COLVIN: I beg to move to leave out the word "prosecutions."
So far from being hostile to the Bill, I am very much in favour of it in every way; but we are very apprehensive that money to be raised under Clause 2 may be used for the prosecution, or even the persecution, of the unregistered practitioner. The unregistered practitioner is essential to the community in the present day. It is no doubt a counsel of perfection that every man in veterinary practice should have a diploma or certificate, but that is not possible at the present time, and the unregistered practitioner has reason to apprehend that he may be subjected to prosecution under this Bill. I move this Amendment in order that I may, I hope, elicit an assurance from the Minister in charge of this Bill that the unregistered practitioner will not be subjected to bye-laws which may really result in his not being able to continue in his profession. There have been bye-laws passed by the Royal Veterinary College which have not been enforced up to a very recent date, and by that enforcement they have necessitated veterinary surgeons dismissing unregistered practitioners who were in their service. We are assured by those in charge of this Bill that it is not the intention of the Bill to persecute the unregistered practitioner, but we do want something more substantial to indicate that they will not use the powers and the money they obtain by this Bill in inflicting any new and unnecessary hardship on the unregistered practitioner.

Mr. JODRELL: In seconding this Amendment, I should like to say it is moved with the object of letting the House and public know that there is very strong feeling throughout the country that a very useful class of public servants, known as unregistered veterinary practitioners, should be protected from any evil effects to themselves and their calling under this Bill. I am sure it is not the object of the Bill that they should be subjected to those evil effects, and, from the assurance we have from the R.H.G. representing the Ministry of Agriculture, I am sure the remarks that will fall from him will completely clear up any fear there may be throughout the country on this subject.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I quite understand that this Amendment has been moved, not for the purpose of pressing it, but in order to enable me to make a statement, which I hope will remove any misapprehension which exists at present. Of course, as regards the actual Amendment to leave out the word "prosecution," it must be clear that one of the objects of the Royal Veterinary College, and one of the objects to which they apply their funds, is to prosecute those of their own number who are guilty of unprofessional conduct. Obviously, discipline must he maintained, and though that is by no means the only object, it is one of the objects, and a proper object if the high standard we wish to maintain in the veterinary profesion is to be maintained. But a good deal of fear and apprehension has been raised on two points, first of all on the question whether this Bill will in any way stop the practice of the unregistered practitioner. It is a fact that a very great deal of the ordinary work in regard to smaller matters is carried on to-day by unregistered practitioners, and, indeed, farming operations could not be carried on at the present time if this practice were stopped, because there are not enough veterinary surgeons to do this class of work. There is nothing whatever in the Bill to prevent these unregistered practitioners from carrying on their practice, provided only they do not represent themselves to be veterinary surgeons.
In addition to that, there has been a considerable amount of fear caused by a particular amendment which was carried by the Royal Veterinary College in respect of one of their bye-laws, which deals with the specific case of what is called "covering," which means this: a fully qualified practitioner has an assistant, who is unregistered and who is not fully qualified. He acts as an assistant. There is no objection to his doing so. The Government certainly has no objection, and I do not think the promoters of the Bill have any objection, provided he does not use the qualifications and status of his chief to enable him to palm himself off as a registered practitioner. A bye-
law, No. 53, was passed recently to stop that practice. It is as follows:
Any of the following practices on the part of Veterinary Surgeons is considered by the Council to amount to conduct disgraceful in a professional respect within the meaning of Section 6 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1881.
(iii) Covering or by his presence, countenance, advice, assistance or co-operation knowingly enabling an unqualified person (whether described as an assistant or otherwise) to attend or treat any patient or otherwise to engage in veterinary practice. Nothing in this paragraph shall, however, prevent a qualified veterinary surgeon from employing a bonâ fide student or articled pupil, provided that he is not employed in such a way as to lead the public to suppose he is qualified.
The wording of that bye-law, and the construction to be put upon it has induced a great fear that it is the intention of the college to put a stop to this system. Every kind of objection has been made to this bye-law. The college has been very strongly urged to repeal it, and to go back to their original bye-law on the same subject. This is as follows:
54. If any veterinary surgeon shall permit his name to be used by any unqualified or unregistered person, or do or permit any other act whereby an unqualified or unregistered person may pass himself off as, or practise as, a veterinary surgeon, he shall be deemed guilty of conduct disgraceful in a professional respect within the meaning of Section 6 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1881.
1.0 P.M.
To the bye-law in that form there was no objection, but to the bye-law introduced in its new form very strong objection has been taken, and a great deal of apprehension has been raised on the part of unregistered persons who have been assistants to registered practitioners. I undertook, in conjunction with my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Cautley), who is in charge of this Bill to-day, to remove this apprehension if possible, so that there shall be no fear of any injustice being done to the unregistered person. I put the matter to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons as to whether they were prepared to withdraw the objectionable bye-law and to go back to the old one. It was pointed out that that was not sufficient, and that it would be open for them in the future, after obtaining the passage of this Bill, to go back to the old bye-law—to reverse their decision. I, therefore, asked them this question: whether they would give an undertaking that they would not alter this bye-law again in future without, first
of all, consulting the Ministry of Agriculture. So we will be posing as guardian angels looking after the interests of these unregistered persons. I am glad to say that the Royal College has given the necessary assurance. In order that the matter may be placed beyond all doubt, so that what they have said may be on record and be pointed to hereafter, I propose to read their letter to the House:

"Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons,

10, Red Lion Square,

London, W.C.1.

June 1, 1920.

Veterinary Surgeons Act (1881) Amendment Bill.

Sir,—At a meeting of the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons held to-day, I was instructed to state for your information that at the quarterly meeting of the Council held on 9th April last notice was given, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, for the withdrawal of the existing bye-law relating to covering, i.e., bye-law 53 (iii), and for the substitution in its place of the old bye-law 54. This Motion will be taken at a special meeting called for the purpose on July 1, and will be confirmed by a subsequent special meeting in the usual way.

The Council hereby also undertakes that no alteration in this bye-law shall be made in future without consultation in the first instance with the Ministry of Agriculture.

I am at the same time to give this official assurance: that there is nothing in the Amendment Bill which will interfere, nor has the College any desire to interfere, with the work of unregistered persons of any description in the performance of operations on or the treatment of animals, provided they do not represent themselves to be qualified veterinary surgeons.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

(Sgd.) FRED BULLOCK,

Secretary and Registrar."

I think that letter is satisfactory. People who wish to be very critical may say that the by-law has not actually been withdrawn, and that the under-1.0 P.M. taking only amounts to a notice of withdrawal to be carried out on a certain future date. I am to explain that the reason for that is simply this: that under the constitution of the College no by-law can be altered, withdrawn, or amended unless three months is given, and subsequently there has to be a second meeting confirming the appeal, or Amendment, or whatever the action may be. But the letter coming from the Secretary of the Council is really an obligation of honour, and there can be
no doubt about it that the full intention of the council to withdraw that bye-law, and to replace it by the old bye-law. We have that assurance which I have read to the House, which, therefore, will be public property, that no alteration will in the future be made without consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture. I hope that that assurance, coupled with the further assurance that so far as interference with the general practice of unregistered practitioners goes there is no intention, as stated in the letter, of that sort, provided always they do not endeavour to pass themselves off as fully-qualified veterinary surgeons. I hope that these two assurances will be sufficient, and will remove not only the objections to the Bill that the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment and others have felt, but also restore confidence amongst the class—the very useful class—of those unregistered practitioners with whom we do not want to interfere in any way.

Sir P. MAGNUS: May I ask whether the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has the power, as indicated in that letter, and by the Speech of the right hon. Gentleman, to bind their successors for all future time as regards the making or the unmaking of bye-laws.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I would not like to say that they have thaèÍkáwer. But the undertaking which I have read out to the House, I feel is quite sure, is sufficient to prevent any abuse taking place in the future.

Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: As one of those who have put down an Amendment I should like to say that the explanation which has just been given by the right hon. Gentleman, the Parliamentary Secretary, is perfectly satisfactory as far as I am concerned. We know it can only be an obligation of honour, but for my part I accept the letter of the Secretary of the Royal College as a matter which is binding upon them in honour, and that is quite sufficient, without any further legal obligation attached to it. There is no doubt that the new bye-law passed is illegal and beyond the power of the college. It excited the suspicions of those of us who sat on Standing Committee B. They, therefore, pressed on the Parliamentary Secretary to intervene on behalf of the unregistered practitioner,
and I am sure they are all very much obliged to him for what he has done. For the future the unregistered practitioner will look to the Ministry of Agriculture as his guardian angel, as the right hon. Gentleman has said. I hope now the controversy with regard to that particular matter will be ended. It is necessary that the Royal College should have power, and, therefore, that the word "prosecutions" should remain part of the Preamble.

Mr. CAUTLEY: On behalf of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, who have entrusted me with this Bill, I desire to say that I agree with everything that has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, the Parliamentary Secretary. Following out the terms of the letter which he read, notice has been given to call this meeting to repeal the bye-law to which exception has been taken, and the college will revert to the old bye-law for the protection of its members. I do not admit, however, that the right hon. Gentleman was right in his view that the passing of the bye-law was illegal. I should like to say this, that the present Bill does not deal with the powers of the veterinary surgeons at all. None of the old Acts or the amending Acts, or any of them, touch at all the practice of operations for the doctoring of animals at all. äkápower that is given to the College is to set up a teaching school to exercise disciplinary powers over its members, and it has the power to secure to those of its members who have gone through an expensive training the right of reserving to themselves the title of duly qualified veterinary surgeons. Beyond that it gives no power, and it is open to anybody to perform these operations on animals providing they do not represent themselves as duly qualified veterinary surgeons. This measure is a proposal, not so much for the protection of the men who are qualified, but for the protection of the public at large, and it provides funds for the increase of veterinary knowledge and practice and for the extension of research work. The unqualified men who perform certain operations on sheep and pigs are doing not only a useful but an important work for agriculture. This Bill does not interfere with them in the slightest degree. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I think the Amendment may be withdrawn.

Captain ELLIOT: I confess that I feel sympathy with a body of men who have had to make considerable concessions in altering their constitution, and I hope that they will be allowed to get their Bill. Later on I should like to discuss the question of the further extension of veterinary science, but perhaps that is a matter which would come more appropriate on the Third Reading. I wish to state, however, that the power to prosecute is urgently necessary. The University of Leeds has a five years' course for a veterinary surgeon, and it is rather hard that a man who has gone through that training should be placed in the same category as anybody who has been assisting perhaps only for three or four months. The practice of the qualified man getting the assistance of non-qualified men was a great evil, and in trying to get rid of it the College deserves every support from this House. The concession they have made goes a long way indeed, and I think they will fulfil the assurance which has been read out although I know they cannot bind their successors. I am aware that when a Minister gives that as a complete assurance he is taking considerable risks, because professional fees run very high on this question, and they are very jealous of other people who are not in their particular union. As it would be a rather risky thing to give the union such power it is also a very risky thing to give a body of any professional men such powers. I hope for these reasons the Amendment will not be persisted in.

Captain Sir B. STANIER: As one of the promoters of this Bill, and after the pledge that has been given, I hope the House will be satisfied that everything has been done to safeguard what we call the old cow doctors who do most admirable work and are very qualified men, although they have not got the veterinary surgeon's certificate. The promoters of this Bill do not mean to injure those men, although the pledge given is only contained in a letter in the annals of this House. It is said that the letter will not be binding on their successors, but the committee of the Veterinary College are men of renown and in every way honest, and this pledge, having been given here, I do not think it will hardly be possible for them to go against it. The Bill is out for the support of the veterinary profession, and it is also out to safeguard the public,
and after this pledge has been given, I hope the Bill will be passed.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I should like to add a word in the same direction from the extremely important analogy of public health. In the matter of public health we are constantly coming against the question of veterinary surgeons, and we have to consider the particular point as to how far we are able to rely on unqualified veterinary surgeons for safeguarding our milk supply. I have the double obligation of representing the line which is most likely to secure the proper protection of the milk supply, and that of the ordinary Member of Parliament of seeing that justice is done to our constituents who have not obtained the same qualifications. I think the matter rests between the ideal and the actual. On the ideal, I am bound to admit that some of my worthy colleagues in the sphere of public health are inclined to look rather too much to the ideal as if it were practical at the present time, and they are out for entrusting everything to fully-qualified practitioners of veterinary science, and they would like to have the most rigid regard for discipline, to keep up prosecutions with the utmost rigour possible, and this was the bone of contention of the unqualified surgeons against this Bill.
In that respect I endorse what has been said with regard to the necessary powers for the qualifications of members of the Veterinary Surgeons College. I have some analogous experience from the point of view of a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, and one knows that the same kind of line would be adopted by the members of the College of Veterinary Surgeons. I quite agree that a pledge given by the Council of such a college would be regarded by its successor as binding, subject to any amendments put forward through the proper channel, and I join in the tributes to the honesty and so on of the Council, but I am bound to say that even veterinary surgeons of the highest degree are human, and may forget a promise that their predecessors have made. That point has to be borne in mind, and, although without a doubt the Council of the College of Veterinary Surgeons in 1950 would feel it self bound by anything that the Council of the College had promised in 1920, it is extremely probable that they will have entirely forgotten any promise
that has been made to the Minister, and may, therefore, act in disregard of it. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear the point in mind, so that if he cannot definitely embody this promise in the Bill it may be remembered by his department in the administration of the veterinary law. I look upon the right hon. Gentleman's department as analogous to the Ministry of Health. It is the Ministry of Veterinary Health, and it is essential to our public health service. Therefore, I wish to have a definite policy to promote the proper use of veterinary surgeons.
I have already said that some of my colleagues in the public health service are extremely anxious to act only through fully-qualified veterinary surgeons. I should wish to do that if it were possible, and I hope in the next world that we may have officials fully qualified in every respect. Enthusiasts and idealists very often lay down this kind of principle on paper; they wish everybody to be absolutely up to the mark in every respect, and to trust only men who are up to the mark with the powers conferred by the State. We have, however, to meet the actual needs at the present time, and the supply of veterinary surgeons includes a large number of men who are unqualified, and who have not been able or willing to go through the five years' course of preparation and instruction in veterinary work. We cannot get a proper supply of veterinary surgeons fully qualified who have gone through the five years' course, and the present time, when horse traffic is being constantly taken over by motor traffic, is exceptionally difficult. It takes away a large amount of the remuneration which, after all, is the attraction to young students to go through the five years' veterinary education. We have therefore to be content with the services, to a very large extent, of unqualified veterinary surgeons. I have some knowledge of country life, and I have very great respect for these men, whose common-sense very often makes up for the letters acquired by examination. I hope that the leaving in of the word "prosecutions" will not prejudice the work of the unqualified surgeons, but at the same time I say quite definitely, from my knowledge of the College of Veterinary Surgeons, with which I have had many dealings, that I feel fairly confident that prosecutions will not be undertaken in any unjust sense. It is necessary, if you are going to aim at a
higher standard in any profession, to have your disciplinary powers, as well as such funds as are proposed to be provided by this Bill. I am, therefore, extremely anxious that we should retain the word "prosecutions" in the Preamble, and I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 2.—(Fees and exemptions, with regulations relating thereto.)

(1) An annual fee of one guinea shall be payable on the first day of April in each year or on such other date as the council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons may from time to time determine, by every member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, save as excepted in Sub-section (4) hereof, such fee to be paid to the registrar of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons on or before the thirtieth day of April, or such other day as the said council may from time to time determine, in each year. On receipt of such fee the registrar shall cause to be posted to the member paying the same a copy of the Register of Veterinary Surgeons free of all cost.

(2) if the annual fee of any member shall not have been paid on or before the thirtieth day of April (or such other day as the said council may from time to time determine) in any year, the registrar shall send to such member by registered post at the address given in the Register of Veterinary Surgeons for the time being, or to any other address of which written notice shall have been given by such member to the registrar, a notice requiring payment, and if such payment shall not be made within one month from posting such notice a final notice shall be sent to such member by registered post.

(3) If any member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons shall not have paid such annual fee for the time being within one month from the posting of the final notice mentioned in the last preceding sub-section, thereupon such unpaid fee shall become and be a debt due and payable to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons at the then existing head office of the College, and if the member so making default be ordinarily resident or domiciled in England or Wales may be sued for and recovered in the county court having jurisdiction over the district in which the said office may for the time being be situate, and if the member so making default be ordinarily resident or domiciled in Scotland such debt may be sued for and recovered in the sheriff court of the sheriffdom of the Lothians and Peebles at Edinburgh, and if the member so making default be ordinarily resident or domiciled in Ireland such debt may be sued for and recovered in the Civil Bill Court in Dublin: Provided always that the council shall have power to withhold such proceedings for the recovery of the said fee in cases in which in the opinion of the council the member is unable to pay. In any such proceedings a certificate
purporting to be under the hand of the secretary of the college setting forth that a member's subscription is due and unpaid shall be primâ facie evidence thereof and of a member's default in payment.

(4) This section shall not apply to members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons who do not practise in the United Kingdom or to holders of the veterinary certificate of the Highland and Agricultural Society who have been or may hereafter be admitted as members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in conformity with clauses one and two of the supplemental charter of 1879 granted to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, or to existing practitioners as defined in section fifteen of the principal Act.

(5) The council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons shall forthwith prepare and pass bye-laws for the disposition of the money from time to time received in respect of the annual fee, and shall have power from time to time to add to, vary, and alter the same (such bye-laws, additions, variations, and alterations to be made and carried out subject to the conditions prescribed in the charter of the college dated eighth March eighteen hundred and forty-four): Provided always, that such bye-laws and any alterations thereto shall have no force or validity until the same shall have been submitted to, and approved by, the Privy Council.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words, "office may for the time being be situate" and to insert instead thereof the words, "member may be ordinarily resident."
This is one of three manuscript Amendments, all raising substantially the same point and not in any way attacking the principle of the Bill. As the Bill stands, this Sub-section provides means whereby, if a Member does not pay his fee, it may be recovered as a debt, but it must be recovered in London if the Member be resident in England, in Edinburgh if he be resident in Scotland, and in Dublin if he be resident in Ireland. It seems to me monstrous that veterinary surgeons living in Shetland or in Caithness or in Stornoway should be dragged up to Edinburgh to answer a charge of this kind. Presumably, if a Member refuses to pay his fee he has a substantial case, and he ought to have every opportunity of presenting it in the best possible way. He cannot do that if he has to appear in Edinburgh. The Bill, as drafted, seems to me to give a preference to the town practitioner as against the country practitioner. Why should there be a corner of law business in Edinburgh, London, or Dublin? With regard to Ireland, if the Bill be passed as it now
stands it will remove a cause of action not only from the country to the town but from one parliamentary jurisdiction to another. I cannot for the life of me see that there is any reason why a man should be bound to defend his case in London or Edinburgh instead, as in other cases, at the county court nearest to his home. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will be able to accept these Amendments. In order to carry out the same point wih regard to Scotland and Ireland, I propose to omit the words "of the Sheriffdom of the Lothians and Peebles at Edinburgh," and to insert instead thereof the words "having jurisdiction over the district in which the said member is ordinarily resident," and also to omit the words "in the Civil Bill Court in Dublin," and to insert instead thereof the words "in the county court having jurisdiction over the district in which the said member is ordinarily resident."

Dr. MURRAY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think that the case made out on behalf of the Amendment is quite a strong and reasonable one. I do not know why small debts of this sort should be placed in a different category from debts of another kind. Why should not these debts be recoverable in the Debt Court of the place in which the member resides? I do not see why men from the remote north of Scotland should be taken to the Sheriff Court of the Lothians and Peebles at Edinburgh. I have great respect for Peebles which sends a very distinguished Member to this House, but I do not know why on that account or on any other account all the veterinary Scotsmen from various parts of the country who may forget to pay their guinea subscription should be hauled up to the Sheriff Court of Peebles. There may be some historical reason for it, and, if so, I should like to know what it is. I can quite understand that the College may be disinclined to incur the expense of proceeding in different parts of the country, especially as the only ground on which action might have to be taken is that the member has forgotten to pay his subscription. He may be a very busy man. He may have delayed opening his letters, as some professional men do occasionally. He may have forgotten the subscription was due, and I would ask, why take him away from his practice and haul him up to the Court in Edinburgh and Peebles, in order to
make him pay? What would be the result? Not only would he have to pay the guinea, but he would have to pay his railway fare to and from—a not inconsiderable item in these days, and he would also have to defray various incidental expenses. In addition, he might be called upon to pay legal expenses, so that the whole proceeding might swallow up the proceeds of his practice for many a day. I do not see why we should regard the Sheriff Court of Peebles and Lothian as the High Court of Scotland, to be had resort to for the collection of small debts. Surely a small debt of this kind could be collected in the ordinary way. We are entitled to have some explanation from the Minister in charge of the Bill of his justification for this proposal.

Mr. CAUTLEY: The object, as I understand it, of the, Amendment, is to save expense and inconvenience, but the last speaker should know that the Sheriff Court of Edinburgh has nothing to do with Peebles.

Dr. MURRAY: It is in the Bill.

Mr. CAUTLEY: The name of the court specified in the Bill is not Edinburgh, and I have an Amendment on the Paper which gives its exact title.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Morison): The Bill reads, "the Sheriff Court of the Sheriffdom of the Lothians and Peebles, is at Edinburgh."

Dr. MURRAY: There is no Sheriff Court at Edinburgh.

Mr. CAUTLEY: At any rate, I have down an Amendment to put in the exact name of the court. We suggest that it would be a most intolerable burden upon the College to have to take proceedings in local courts in distant parts of the country. I think the hon. Member who Seconded the proposal cannot have read the Bill, for there we have laid down the steps that must be taken before legal proceedings can be instituted. Those steps do away with all chances that the non-payment may be due merely to forgetfulness. In the first Sub-section it is laid down that the fee shall be paid to the Registrar of the College before the 30th April in each year, and in Sub-section (2) it is provided that if it be not so paid, the Registrar shall send to the member, by registered post, written notice requiring payment, and if such payment be not made within one month, a final
notice is to be sent to the member by registered post.

Dr. MURRAY: He may have good reasons for not paying.

Mr. CAUTLEY: He gets full warning that if he does not pay by a certain date, proceedings will be instituted. Under Sub-section (3) there is a provision that the Council shall not be bound to resort to proceedings in cases in which, in their opinion, the member is not able to pay. It is difficult to see, therefore, how there can be any real defence to any such proceedings as may be taken, and if the Council is of the opinion that it ought to proceed to recover the subscription, I do suggest that it would be unfair that it should be driven to have recourse to various Sheriff Courts in distant parts of Scotland. It is reasonable to assume also that the individual will not suffer by being brought to Edinburgh, because, if he has a good defence, and if he succeeds in showing that the Council were so foolish as to sue a man for the subscription when he was not completely responsible, it may be taken for granted that the judge of the Edinburgh court would make the College pay his expenses.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: But he would not get compensation for his loss of time?

Mr. CAUTLEY: It does seem to me it would be a gross hardship to the College to put it to the expense of taking proceedings in courts in distant parts of the country. The merit of the arrangement suggested by the Mover of the Amendment is absolutely outweighed by the disadvantage to the College, which, after all, for its administration which is conducted in the interests of the country and of veterinary surgeons themselves, has only the guinea subscription from some 3,300 registered members to rely upon. That income ought not to be whittled away in expenses incurred in running about to distant county courts.

Mr. HOGGE: I am sorry that the Minister in charge of the Bill does not seem inclined to accept the Amendment. I have listened to the speech which has been delivered in response to that of the Mover of the Amendment, and I have come to the conclusion that it constitutes a strong argument why the Amendment
should be accepted. If this College has only a membership of 3,000 to rely upon for its maintenance—a fact which I have heard stated for the first time—I would like to know what is going to happen if, in the event of an unsuccessful action in Edinburgh against a veterinary surgeon who is brought there from Stornoway, its funds are substantially reduced by the costs of the proceedings. This would represent a bigger inroad on the College funds than would be caused by any attempt to recover the subscription through local courts. By the course suggested in the Amendment you get rid of all compensations for lost time and you get the thing done inside the domicile of the man concerned. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has sufficient confidence in the Sheriff's Courts in Scotland to know that you can get as good a judgment there as anywhere else. If that is so, why put the already small funds of the College in jeopardy, which might very easily be if a man were brought to trial either in Edinburgh or London, for the purpose of recovering a guinea? If you are going to create, as you do under this Bill, all the machinery for the recovery of a guinea, you are jeopardising the success of the College. You should accept a commen sense Scottish Amendment. We have not only the convenience of our own fellow-countrymen in view, but also the good of the funds of the College. I am certain that the Lord Advocate, who understands the Scottish legal system, if he cared to intervene as a private Member in this Debate, would say that my argument is sound and that the Amendment ought to be accepted.

Mr. MORISON: I would appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill, to agree in substance with the proposal made by my hon. Friends opposite. I think that he rather exaggerates this matter. As has been pointed out, in most of the cases no defence is possible and all that will require to be done is to get the decree of some Sheriff's Court, but if all these cases have to go to a Sheriff's Court in Edinburgh, the decree has then to be taken to where the defendant is domiciled, and this will lead to delay and, I believe, to as much expense in the long run as would be saved by having all these actions raised in the one court. But there is another point. We have many provisions of this kind in Acts of Parliament in Scotland,
and there is a regular practice in regard to them, and I would suggest that in this Clause we should conform to what is the ordinary practice. I would suggest that the words, "or domiciled" should be deleted, and the Clause will then conform to what is our usual practice.

Captain ELLIOT: I would add my request to those of other Scottish Members that this very reasonable Amendment should be accepted. The chief argument against it was that it would be an intolerable burden for the College to send people all over Scotland. I cannot see why it should be a more intolerable burden to send them over Scotland than to send them over England and Wales. In England and Wales the debt may be sued for and recovered in the County Court, and in Scotland it would have to be sued for in Edinburgh. I have no knowledge of the conditions in England, but I have a certain amount of knowledge of the conditions in Scotland, and in the country districts a long journey to Edinburgh would involve much hardship to the veterinary surgeons. There is another point. It is surely of importance that a trial of this kind should take place in the district in which the veterinary surgeon lives and that the question of his failing to conform to the regulations should be dealt with where he has his practice and not in a far-away place like Edinburgh, so that there would be greater publicity in the district and less expense to the man. The burden on the college can be borne more easily than the burden on the little man who is being brought into Court. It has been said that there are some 3,300 registered veterinary surgeons. I believe that the unregistered veterinary surgeons number something like 15,000.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I have no means of telling.

Captain ELLIOT: These are the small men, making the small incomes, and are the men who would be the most hard hit, as the Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) has pointed out, by having to come, say, from Stornaway to Edinburgh.

Mr. RAWLINSON: This Amendment, which happens to refer only to England, has been discussed only by Scottish Members. I support what has been said by my hon. Friend (Dr. Murray). So far as England is concerned there is no
particular reason why for the recovery of a small sum like this the ordinary County Court should not be employed rather than the County Court in London. Even supposing a man thinks he has got a defence to a case, he is entitled to have the case tried and it would be a very heavy expense to put upon him to have to come up to London from some distant part of the country like Cornwall or Devonshire to contest a case here, and in a very large number of cases it would have the effect of his not appearing. For that reason I imagine that the general rule in English law, that you should sue a man in the County Court in the district where he lives, should apply to this case as much as to any other. I was very much interested in the discussion between Scottish Members. It always interests me as one of the few Englishmen in the House to listen to these discussions. I would like very much to know what is the proper name of the Court, of the sheriffdom of the Lothians and Peebles at Edinburgh? It is only right that the House should be put in possession of the facts of the case by the Lord Advocate, but I am sorry to say that he addressed the House with a lack of bravery that was shocking to see. He never told us a single word as to what this important Court was, and one might leave the House as ignorant in regard to it as one came in.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I think that what I said cannot have been quite clear. It was entirely on the saving of costs and the question of expediency. The point was that if the College had two or three persons in default, this power to go to the one court would enable all those cases to be dealt with in one place on one day, and so save the expense of taking the Secretary and other officers, and probably two or three witnesses, to each of the various places in which the members concerned might happen to be. I recognise the weight of what the Lord Advocate says, but, although what I have said does not seem to weigh with him, I am convinced that there would be a great saving of costs to the College.

Major M. WOOD: I should like to say a word in answer to the observations of the hon. and learned Member. He bases his case on the saving of expense. If I believed that there would be any substantial saving of expense, I would not have put forward this Amendment, but
I cannot see that there will. If there is no substantial case to be tried, there will be no witnesses. Again, the hon. and learned Member seems to suggest that the case cannot be heard without the appearance of the Secretary and a number of officials. The Bill, however, provides that documentary evidence shall be sufficient, and all that will be necessary will be for the secretary of the College to instruct the local solicitor, and send him the documents and certificates, which will be produced in court. There will be no necessity to send an official to Scotland or Ireland, as the case may be. Even if there were, in the case, say, of a veterinary surgeon resident in Caithness, he would have to come down to Edinburgh, and the officials, if they have to go at all, would have to go to Edinburgh. It would be much better, if it is merely a question of expense, that the man should either come down from Caithness to London, or the London people should go to Caithness, rather than that each should go to half way. I am certain that there is no real saving of expense, and it is introducing an entirely new principle for no reason at all. I am quite prepared to accept the amended form suggested by the Lord Advocate.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think that, in view of the general feeling that has been expressed, it would be wise if my hon. and learned Friend were to accept this Amendment. It is rather difficult to follow, but I understand that it only applies to Scotland.

Mr. RAWLINSON: The Amendment which is now before the House is to leave out the words "office may for the time being be situate," and to insert instead thereof the words "member may be ordinarily resident," and the question put from the Chair was "that the words 'office may for the time being be situate' stand part." That applies merely to England and Wales, and does not touch Scotland, which is dealt with in a subsequent Amendment which the hon. Member said he was going to move.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am very much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. That being so, the difficulty I felt has been removed. Otherwise, we should have been applying this system in Scotland, of allowing the pursuing to take place in
the court where the member was ordinarily resident, whereas in England we should have to go to the court where the head office of the College is situated. There is still one difficulty It is proposed to leave out the words, "or domiciled" in respect to Scotland, but those words appear also, a little earlier in the sub-section, with regard to England and Wales, and the same would apply there. I do not know whether it is possible now, under the rules of Order, by leave of the House, to go back to that point.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): The point could be met by withdrawing the present Amendment, which has been put from the Chair. Unless that be done we could not go back.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: If the hon. and gallant Member withdraws the Amendment now, will he be able to move it later? Otherwise he will have lost the opportunity.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Yes.

Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: I do not think it necessary to withdraw the Amendment, because the words "or domiciled" are merely surplusage, and do not put difficulty in anybody's way in regard to England.

Mr. MORISON: I think those words do introduce a little difficulty, because a man might be ordinarily resident in England and domiciled in Scotland, and might be sued in either court. The principle is that the man should be sued in the court where his ordinary residence is, and I think that should be adopted.

Sir W. WHITLA: I have not had time to put in a written Amendment, but I wish to direct the attention of the House to the provision with regard to suing in the Civil Bill Court of Dublin. You have before the House at the present time—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We shall come to that later on.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "or domiciled" ["ordinarily resident or domiciled in England or Wales"].—[Mr. Morison.]

Major M. WOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "office may for the time being be situ-
ate," and to insert instead thereof the words "member may be ordinarily resident".

Mr. DENNISS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I desire to draw the special attention of the Lord Advocate and of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture to this. I quite agree with the Mover of the Amendment, and with the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) that in the ordinary course you sue a defendant in the court in the place where he lives, and primâ facie, therefore, that would have been right. The only question is one of expediency and the saving of money. On which side does the advantage lie? The case of the solicitor to the college—and my experience would confirm it—is that if this Amendment is accepted and this veterinary college is compelled to go to different County Courts in England, Scotland, or Wales for the purpose of recovering one guinea, that will be irrecoverable, and you are going by the powers which you have given by the Bill to make it compulsory on every registered member of the College of Veterinary Surgeons to pay his guinea. At present the college is getting these guineas paid voluntarily by such members as choose to pay. A great many do not pay because it is a voluntary payment. If this Amendment is accepted and the college, whose head office and only office is in London, is compelled to go to various courts in the country where the defendant resides, the money will become irrecoverable. In the ordinary way there would be very few cases if the college had the power of enforcing it. Of course, there is a debt which can be enforced. But if you make it common knowledge that the debt is unenforceable, it comes in very much the same category as it is now, a voluntary payment, and the loss to the college will be almost incalculable. I feel the weight of what the Lord Advocate has said now that he is backed up by another Member of the Government. It is only in the interests of this college and of veterinary surgery that I take up this attitude. I ask them to reconsider whether it is not true that they are going to make this debt practically irrecoverable. If on the other hand the Bill stands as it is the
whole of the Scotch cases, if there are any, or the whole of the Irish cases and the whole of the English cases will be put down on one day, the solicitor and the officer of the Veterinary College and the necessary witnesses can all attend on one day and these cases can be heard, and the general saving will be very considerable indeed. If on the other hand they have to go to the North of Scotland or the wilds of Ireland, the guinea will not be worth getting. I feel the weight of what has been said and I should be most willing to accede. If I am forced of course I shall accede. I do not want to put the House to the trouble of a division after what has been said. But I ask for reconsideration.

2.0 P.M.

Colonel GREIG: I am sure the hon. Member is rather exaggerating We all want to have the most effective and economic method of enforcing this right. It would be perfectly easy for the solicitor representing the college to instruct a local solicitor. In most instances it would not be necessary to have any oral evidence. It would be purely documentary evidence. Look at it from another point of view. If these cases are heard in a County Court or Sheriff Court in their own district, the whole of the circumstances will be admirable matter for the local press, whereas if they are sued in the central jurisdiction they may come up for a day's holiday and nothing more will be heard about the decision. Surely one summons, even in a district far removed from Edinburgh, in a local court will have far more effect than the system the hon. Member advocates.

Sir B. STANIER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Greig) has tried to point out how easy it would be for the college to instruct a solicitor to appear in some local court. In order to instruct the solicitor in a local court the Veterinary College would have to pay him to carry out the duties he is asked to do.

Major M. WOOD: Just as in London.

Sir B. STANIER: The payment would be in the neighbourhood of a guinea, therefore the college which is suing for a guinea has to pay the solicitor a guinea for doing the work. Would not that break down the whole value of the Bill?

Major M. WOOD: It has to do that in any case.

Sir B. STANIER: I believe the weight of this point is so great that the college would be a loser rather than a gainer.

Mr. ROBERTSON: The chief opposition to this has come from the Scottish Members, and I cannot understand why a college should be put in an entirely different position from anyone else who is suing. Hon. Members representing English constituencies have not very much interest in this, and we have, because we are very jealous of our customs and practices in Scotland. If a college can only be successful by suing its members for its guineas, it is high time some other method was tried of putting it on a sound footing. But this is a very dangerous precedent. I do not see why a college should be put in an entirely different position from any other creditor. Here you have a precedent, it might very well be argued, that the case of a poor debtor in any part of the country should be tried where the firm has its headquarters. We ought not to allow this to be introduced. If a college can only maintain itself by suing its members for its guineas, I am afraid there is something else required. I appeal to the hon. Member that if he pays no attention to Welsh or English sentiments he will at least pay some attention to Scottish sentiment on this question and not introduce something that is entirely contrary to our universal practice.

Mr. MORISON: I appreciate what has been said by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill and I quite agree that if a case is brought and the secretary and some officials of the society has to be brought to court it certainly is more economical to have these cases brought in London than to have them in separate courts. This is a class of case in which there is not only no defence but which in the great majority of cases no defence is statable. It is only in the very exceptional cases that you will have any witnesses. Therefore, the problem which the House has to consider, if it is to regard this question as one of economy, is whether it is much more economical to have to take a decree in the Sheriff Court at Edinburgh, and then have that decree sent down to the district where the defender resides in order to be
enforced and the execution carried out, or whether it is more economical to take the decree in the Sheriff Court of the district where the defender is resident, and have it enforced and executed there. If the question is looked upon in that light, I suggest that, as regards the question of expense, the practice in Scotland is in favour of the latter. I cannot speak for the practice in England, but it seems to me that in Scotland at all events the ordinary rule could be applied and the Amendment suggested could be accepted. With regard to the expense in regard to agents, where you employ an agent in Edinburgh or in Caithness the statutory fee is 3s. 6d., or something like that.

Mr. B. DENNISS: Is that fee allowed as costs in a claim of only one pound?

Mr. MORISON: Yes.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I quite agree that it is far more convenient for the College to be able to sue in its own Court and to save up fifty summonses and go down one day and do the work. The balance of convenience is in favour of the ordinary rule of law that a man is entitled to be sued in the district where he lives. It is made as easy as possible for the College of Veterinary Surgeons to sue without bringing any evidence at all.

Mr. CAUTLEY: That is in undefended cases.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Sub-section (3) provides that
In and such proceedings a certificate purporting to be under the hand of the secretary of the college setting forth that a member's subscription is due and unpaid shall be primâ facie evidence thereof and of a member's default in payment.
Therefore, all they have to do is not to employ a solicitor at all, but go to what is called a default summons or a pink paper summons in which the person simply swears that the money is due and he annexes this letter to his declaration, which can be done by a man in London and sent down to the local County Court, and unless the defendant puts in a notice that he has a defence the matter will go through without any trouble at all. That is in undefended cases, which will be 99 per cent. of the cases. In the hundredth case the defendant puts in a defence. He does that at his own risk, because if he goes before the Court and loses the Court may make an order for him to
pay all the costs. If, on the other hand, he wins his case, it is only fair that he should not be put to the expense of coming to London to contest the case. If he has a substantial claim he is entitled to urge to have it brought in his own district so that he shall not incur unnecessary expenses. It is only in that one hundredth case that the College will have to employ a local solicitor. As this is a matter upon which there is a difference of opinion it is a question on which the House might be asked fairly to divide. I am in favour of the Amendment.

Sir B. STANIER: If the college puts in a summons in Edinburgh for the payment of a subscription from a veterinary surgeon, could that be sent off to a Court in Caithness and could it be taken up by the Court in Caithness by instructions from Edinburgh? If that could be done it would meet the point of the hon. Member opposite and would meet a good deal of the points of the college.

Mr. MORISON: No, Sir. The procedure in Scotland is simple. All you require to do in the case of a defendant who is a defaulter would be to take out a summons in the Sheriff Court where the defendant is ordinarily resident. That would be the same in Edinburgh as in every other centre. Then a summons is served, and if as would happen in the great majority of cases the defendant did not appear, the decree goes by default and there would be no necessity for witnesses, documents, or anything of the kind. It is just as convenient to do that in Caithness in the great majority of cases as in Edinburgh. As regards expense, if you had the Clause as the promoter of the Bill wants it you would get a decree in Edinburgh and then take it up to Caithness in order to enforce it.

Mr. R. MCLAREN: The hon. Member in charge of the Bill, as well as the hon. Member for Aberdeen who has moved the Amendment, are wanting to arrive at the same conclusion but by different methods. It has been said that documentary evidence would be sufficient in the case of anyone being sued in Court, but I am not sure whether any sheriff in Scotland would give a decree in an undefended case unless there were witnesses there to prove the fact.

Major M. WOOD: It is provided in the Bill.

Mr. MCLAREN: I am rather afraid that we in Scotland would be rather jealous of doing anything that would interfere with the sheriff's jurisdiction. If the Lord Advocate can satisfy me that documentary evidence would be taken as proof in connection with a case, then it is a different question. I think the House ought to know exactly where we stand in the matter. If in undefended cases it was necessary to travel down, say, from London, the expense would be serious.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I do not propose to go to a division. I have done my best to convince the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In Subsection (3), leave out the words "or domiciled" ["resident or domiciled in Scotland suck debt"].—[Major or M. Wood.]

Major M. WOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "of the sheriffdom of the Lothians and Peebles at Edinburgh."

Mr. ROBERTSON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir B. STANIER: I appeal to the representative of the Scottish Office to give some explanation of this.

Mr. MORISON: The office of sheriff in Scotland is of a totally different character from the office of sheriff in England. The sheriff in Scotland is one of the King's executive officers, and he has in his courts jurisdiction to decide all financial questions, even to an unlimited amount. He has also very large jurisdiction in questions relating to real estate. Each county has a sheriff. Most of the sheriffs have deputies who are called sheriff-substitutes. The sheriffdom consists of the particular county or of the counties that are joined together. There is one sheriffdom in Scotland known as the sheriffdom of the Lothians and Peebles. There is only one sheriff in that sheriffdom, but there are three or four sheriff-substitutes, who sit in different places. If you wish to raise an action in the Edinburgh Sheriff Court the way in which to describe the court in which the case is raised is "the sheriff court of the sheriffdom of the Lothians and Peebles at Edinburgh." The Bill gave the correct description as it was originally framed. There is no other
sheriffdom in Edinburgh or in Scotland so far as the Lothians and Peebles are concerned. We have a sheriff of Fife, of Ross and Cromarty, and of Caithness, and so on, and they have all got their sheriff-substitutes. If the clause in the Bill contains the words "sheriff court," that is all that is required.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I am very much indebted for the illuminating explanation of the Lord Advocate. After what has been done with regard to England, it seems to me that we are bound to accept the suggestions with regard to Scotland.

Sir P. MAGNUS: If to stop at the words "Sheriff Court" is sufficient definition of the particular court in which this matter may be tried, I should like to know whether there are any other Sheriff Courts besides this one, and would they have proper jurisdiction?

Mr. MORISON: The Sheriff Court is a court constituted by statute and there are provisions in that statute arranging rules. If the College takes out a summons, the Sheriff Court has jurisdiction if the person is "ordinarily resident."

Amendment agreed to.

Major M. WOOD: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "or domiciled" ["domiciled in Ireland"]. A man's residence is not necessarily the same as his domicile. He might be domiciled in Scotland and resident in England.

Major Sir KEITH FRASER: Might I ask for a definition of the words "domiciled in Scotland"?

Amendment agreed to.

Major M. WOOD: I beg to move, to leave out the words "in the Civil Bill Court in Dublin" and to insert instead thereof the words "in the county court of the district in which said member is ordinarily resident."

Mr. ROBERTSON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir W. WHITLA: Last week we had before the House a Bill to establish a Parliament in Dublin and a Parliament in Belfast. How is it possible for these words to stand in the Bill? We will have a separate judicature, and the writ in Belfast will not run in Dublin. There is
also mention of a Veterinary College in Belfast. You have made a change for Scotland and it is absolutely essential that you should make this change to the county court as regards the island of Ireland, which is now to be divided into two. I support the Amendment.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I quite agree that the Bill must be made symmetrical, but is the County Court the right tribunal?

Sir W. WHITLA: I have no legal knowledge, but I understand the County Court system in Ireland is similar to that in England.

Major M. WOOD: I have no legal qualifications as regards Ireland, but I submitted this Amendment to a solicitor Member from Ireland, and he said it was right.

Mr. RAWLINSON: We were told in the case of Scotland that the expense would be small, and perhaps we could be told what would be the exact procedure to recover money in this way in Ireland. Is there any default procedure in Ireland, as, if not, it would be a great charge? My own idea is that you have got no such court procedure in Ireland as you have in England.

Sir P. MAGNUS: I feel in a very great difficulty over this Amendment. When we were discussing the question of the Court in Scotland, we had the great advantage of the presence of the Lord Advocate, and I think it would help us in coming to a conclusion on this question if some Law Officer for Ireland were present to enlighten us. I do not know whether I should be in order, but I should rather like to move the adjournment of the Debate in order to secure the attendance of a Law Officer.

Mr. DENNISS: Every lawyer knows that the system of County Courts in Ireland is almost entirely the same as that in England.

Sir R. WOODS: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned".
It is quite clear to me that there is no one in the House at present who is able to speak in any way authoritatively on the point raised by this Amendment, and I therefore think we should adjourn the discussion in order to secure the attendance of some of the Law Officers from Ireland.

Sir H. CRAIK: I beg to second the Motion.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I hope the Motion will not be accepted. It is very important that we should get this Bill, as there is general agreement on its main principles. It is merely a technical point that has arisen in connection with the jurisdiction in Ireland, consequential upon the changes which have been made in respect of England and Scotland. If there is any real difficulty, and if we are unable to clear it up here to-day, it will be quite possible to put it right in another place. In any case, it would be most undesirable that a Bill of this sort, which is really wanted in the interests of veterinary science, should come to an end and not be carried to-day on a technical point. I hope, therefore, the House will resist this Motion.

Sir R. WOODS: I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

Question put, and negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 4.—(Companies to be liable for offences the same as individuals.)

"Anything which would be an offence under the Veterinary Surgeons Act if committed by an individual shall be an offence if committed by a company registered under the Companies Acts."

Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words "or a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act."
That only completes the scheme of the Clause, which is to make companies or any trading bodies which are carrying on veterinary business, responsible in the same way as private persons.

Mr. DENNISS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. MURRAY: Could not the Companies Acts be defined?

Mr. RAWLINSON: I support the Amendment, but I venture to ask, if even now the Clause is wide enough. Does it include the co-operative societies, which are dealing very largely now with all sorts
of different questions, including insurance?

Mr. CAUTLEY: I am obliged for the suggestion, but I am inclined to think they are included. At any rate, the matter will be looked into and put right in another case, if necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Cautley.]

Mr. DENNISS: It seems a pitiful state of things that the Royal Veterinary College should have to bring in a Bill of this description, in order to raise the balance of the paltry sum of 3,300 guineas, which is not paid voluntarily by the 3,300 veterinary surgeons. There must be something very wrong somewhere, when a body which is dubbed the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and which is entrusted with all the examinations of all veterinary surgeons, and with prosecutions and inquiries, should be so stinted for funds as to have to bring in this little Private Bill, badly drawn as it was, and open to so much dispute and misconstruction as it was in Committee. If it had not been for the good offices of the Minister of Agriculture, the Bill certainly would have been wrecked, but fortunately that rock has been escaped. This body has a college at Camden Town, and there are colleges, I believe, in Scotland and in Ireland. Those are the only colleges that the Royal Veterinary College recognises at all. It is a sort of monopoly that this Royal Veterinary College has, and it looks with disfavour upon any other university or body granting any degrees to veterinary surgeons. In fact, there is at Leeds University a curriculum of veterinary surgeons. Although a candidate may have passed through the excellent five years' course there, and fully qualified himself, quite as well as, if not better than, at Camden Town or in Scotland or Ireland, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons refuses to recognise that degree and compels him to come to Camden Town for a course there of another four years. Such a state of things ought to be known to the public. I am quite sure it is detrimental to the profession of the veterinary surgeon. Perhaps that is the reason why the great majority of the 3,300 veterinary surgeons do not subscribe their guinea at the present time and that
is probably why this Bill has to be brought in to compel the balance of the 3,300 who do not subscribe. Belfast University has for long contemplated granting degrees in veterinary science, and having a regular course there, but that has been blocked entirely by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Similarly at Cardiff, which wanted to do the same thing.
I think it is time the eye of public opinion was directed to this Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in order that we may see that they may have proper means given to them to carry out their duties as an examining body principally, and also for prosecution and inquiry as mentioned in the Preamble of the Bill, and, more than that, they should be put in a position so as not to be allowed to boycott, as it were, the other universities in the Kingdom, which, I think, grant a degree which is worth more than that of Camden Town, because in the larger universities, such as those of London, Oxford, Cambridge, Leeds, Belfast and Cardiff, students are brought into contact with those of other professions, which is not the case at Camden Town. The scarcity of veterinary surgeons is notorious in this country, which is the greatest live-stock breeding country in the world. In spite of that, this retrograde body did its best to crush out altogether the unqualified veterinary assistant, in which case the live-stock industry in this country would have been seriously affected. However, we have a champion of the unqualified veterinary assistants in the Minister of Agriculture.
I should have thought that the cost incurred in suing for a guinea would be such that when judgment was obtained for it, it would be all swallowed up in costs. It really comes to this, that in the case of refusal to pay the fee, in the majority of cases, it will not be worth the while of the Veterinary College to sue for it, and to a great extent this Bill will become a dead letter. The time has now arrived, I think, when the Royal Veterinary College might very well lay its case before the British public, and, if necessary, before this House, to put the veterinary profession upon a more secure and satisfactory basis than is provided by this miserable and pitiable little Bill. I am quite sure the agricultural interest in this country, as well as Members of this House, would be only too glad to help
them, but, first of all, they must depart from their old-fashioned monopolistic methods, and must recognise the degrees of Leeds, and allow Belfast, Cardiff and other universities to grant veterinary degrees, without compelling those who have got those degrees to come to Camden Town for another four years' course. It is a public matter of some importance, or I should not have brought this before the House at this time on a Friday afternoon.

Captain ELLIOT: I think the last speaker in some way was a little unjust, but I do think it is worth while on this occasion to have a very short review of the position of veterinary science in this country. After all, the agricultural Estimates have gone up from £300,000 to over £4,000,000, of which a great amount is spent in veterinary investigations, and in agricultural research. The status of the veterinary surgeon now requires, undoubtedly, to be raised. This Bill is a step, although a small step, in the right direction, and therefore I welcome it most heartily, but I do think that further investigation of the problem is necessary. The very name "veterinary surgeon," like the old term "barber surgeon," should pass away. The micrologist, the investigator into all branches of parasitic diseases, diseases of animals, and so on, will become a man as highly skilled and as highly qualified, and a member of a body with as great a status in the country as the doctor or scientist. The old cow-doctor, as he has been called during the course of this Debate, is a man who, from his experience, skill, his hard common sense, is a man worthy of every consideration, but the veterinary surgeon of the future, for whom I hope some new title will emerge, will be a man infinitely more valuable to the health and to the success and prosperity of this country, for, after all, one thing which strikes one more than another in going among agriculturists of this country, is the deep distrust they have of the Whitehall official, and the great confidence they are beginning to develop in the laboratory side. It is a strange thing, this existence of a new spirit coming in, which I am only too glad to observe. When you speak to the ordinary farmer you find that he distrusts the bureaucrat, but he trusts the laboratory man. One of the most striking examples of that we have found
in the recent investigations into the causes of foot-and-mouth disease. There are few things which have caused greater hardship and expense to this country than the foot-and-mouth epidemics which have devastated it. They have led to a very stringent order prohibiting the importation of livestock, which has led, and will lead again, to considerable friction with the great Dominion of Canada which is anxious.

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER. What has the Dominion of Canada got to do with a Bill which provides that a guinea shall be paid to a veterinary surgeon?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think I must hear the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Captain ELLIOT: I think, perhaps, it is a little ungracious on the part of the right hon. Baronet to make that interruption, I do think that the progress of veterinary science in this country is one of most vital interest, and it is perhaps impossible to expect that a Member for a City Division shall grasp the importance of it to the same extent as the Members for county constituencies. But I assure my right hon. Friend that there is no subject in which a deeper interest is taken in the counties of Great Britain than the progress of veterinary research. This is a very important Bill. I think it is not out of order on a Friday afternoon to raise briefly some of the more important issues now lying before the animal pathologist. There are many issues in which we take the greatest interest which can only be investigated by the skilled man who has gone through a course of veterinary science. This Bill is an attempt to raise the status of the man who had gone through such a course, and, therefore, I think one is entitled to point out that the man who has undergone a five years' course of veterinary science is one who is worthy of the utmost consideration of this House when he or his governing body, as in this case, comes before the House of Parliament, and asks for certain rather wide and rather sweeping provisions in a Bill. The case of the unregistered practitioner deserves our utmost sympathy. At the same time that must not blind us to the fact that we are moving on to a very much higher level of science in animal pathology as in human pathology, in animal medicine as in human
medicine, in animal surgery as in human surgery, and that the necessity for raising the status of these men, and giving them some sort of vested interest in their five years' work is not a thing entirely out of order. I would repeat again to the right hon. Gentleman that the county member is in quite a different position in this matter to the member for streets and streets—[Interruption]—I cannot continue by question and answer.

Sir. F. BANBURY: May I suggest, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the position of a city Member has nothing whatever to do with the veterinary surgeon?

Captain ELLIOT: I think the position of a man who is interested in this Bill as against the position of the man who is not interested in this Bill is entirely germane, and no reason for the interruptions of the right hon. Baronet.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It would be a little more in order if the hon. and gallant Gentleman directed his remarks to the Third Reading of the Bill. Then we can judge whether his observations have reference to what is in the Bill.

Captain ELLIOT: I beg your pardon, Sir. If I am in any way transgressing the rules of order, because this is a matter in which, as a medical man myself, I take the greatest interest, and I have the utmost sympathy for the veterinary surgeons of this country in their attempts to raise their status to that level which, I think, the medical practitioners of this country have reached. I was simply dealing with the fact of the investigations into 3.0 P.M. the causes of foot-and-mouth disease which, after all, require a very high level of scientific skill, and which are now being investigated by a Committee presided over by Professor Muir of Glasgow who is a pure scientist, and a man whose views would not be entirely interpreted except by people who themselves have received a scientific training.
I am arguing in favour of the Third Reading of this Bill, and in favour of a better recognition by the country of the work of the veterinary surgeons. We are coming more and more clearly to understand that the health of the herds of this country is of vital importance to the people. It is of vital importance to the industry of this country. It can be served and only be served by men who themselves have undergone a long and careful
apprenticeship in that scientific training which is becoming more and more complex every day. The veterinary surgeons who have investigated the question of foot-and-mouth disease, and who are investigating it just now, are highly-skilled men. They ought not to be put on the same footing as the ordinary ignorant man who has come into the work purely through apprenticeship, and has never studied the broad scientific principles underlying the work of the profession. There is no doubt at all that from the question of animal pathology we hope to learn a great deal which will subsequently be of use in human pathology. From the investigations into the epidemiology of foot-and-mouth disease there may be, and we hope will be, the greatest use in the investigations in the future into the epidemiology of such things as influenza. I need only refer to the great institute at Aberdeen for the examination of animal diseases, which has recently received very liberal support from the citizens in Scotland, has attracted a professor of physiology from London University, and has taken him up there to investigate questions of animal diseases. A science which has gone so far should have the utmost encouragement and the utmost assistance which this House can possibly give to it.
In questions of animal pathology, questions of diathetics and so on, we, who are medical men, hope to get the utmost advantages from the researches of our professional brethren, the veterinary surgeons. The whole question of animal feeding is being investigated at the institute in Aberdeen, which is not being sufficiently supported, I think, by the Government. There is the great Veterinary Surgeons College of Glasgow, from which, I understand, a deputation will at a very early date interview some of the leading Government officials. There is no doubt the work which they do has not been sufficiently recognised in the past. I fear, unless the question is raised in this House, it will not be sufficiently recognised in the future by Parliament and the Government of Great Britain. The problems still awaiting research are very many. They are of the highest importance. I have touched briefly upon foot-and-mouth disease. The Veterinary Surgeons College of Glasgow, which will be closely affected by this Bill, has many other things up for discussion. It has got the whole question
of contagious abortion, some sort of epizootic infection, which is causing enormous losses every year to the herds of this country. There is all the sheep diseases, which it is of the highest importance to investigate, and which can only be investigated by people who have received a scientific training. There is the disease known as loupin-ill amongst the sheep flocks of Scotland, which is causing and has caused very great loss. There is a new disease, known as scrapie, a blood disease of which we have no knowledge, or very little, at the present time, and which ultimately requires investigation.
There are many other diseases, which I will not weary the House to recapitulate, but which have an immediate bearing on the health of the herds of this country, and, through them, on the prosperity of the people of this country. They should be investigated by men who have undergone the necessary apprenticeship which the degree of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons recognises, and which this Bill goes a certain length towards definitely and permanently recognising. There has been a great deal of correspondence in the agricultural Press concerning the problems which still have to be investigated. From sheep diseases alone it is estimated that the loss to Scotland is over £500,000 annually. That is a loss which could be largely averted if we had the service of more skilled men. As this Bill takes a step towards the provision of more skilled men, on that account alone it deserves the support of this House. In the past the old cow doctors have not proved themselves able to avert this great loss.
The whole question of animal pathology is practically an unexplored science. The fact, for instance, that the disease of rickets is of common occurrence amongst sheep and growing pigs shows that if we can investigate these things by men of scientific training, we might discover results of the utmost importance to the children of this country. The subject of dental caries or bad teeth is very closely connected with dietetics, and we can study this question from animal nutrition and derive the greatest benefit for human nutrition, and we cannot do this except with the assistance of men trained in science and with animal knowledge, and those men are alone represented by the veterinary surgeons of this country. This is one of the main reasons why I support this Bill.
The veterinary institutions have done a great deal of good in this country. I should be very sorry to say anything that is out of order, but it is not often one gets the opportunity of putting the claims of veterinary science before Parliament and the country. When I see a Minister on the Front Bench whose devotion to this subject we all recognise, naturally I am anxious to place before him the claims of veterinary science. This Bill does not go very far, but I ask the support of hon. Members for it on the ground that it does not ask for any money from the State. In this measure the veterinary surgeons are asking permission to tax themselves, and the fact that they are willing to do this in order to extend and enlarge the field of knowledge on these matters is one of the most admirable elements of public spirit that this House has recently seen. Most other measures generally end up by a request for the vote of a large sum of public money, but a Bill which taxes its own members for the benefit of its own scientific development, demands the most favourable consideration that this House can give to it.
I should like the chief Irish Law Officer to explain the effect of the Amendment which has been accepted with regard to Ireland by the Mover of this Bill, and if the right hon. Gentleman could, in a few words, define for us the bearing of that Amendment on the veterinary surgeons of Ireland, he would be doing a considerable favour to a large number of worthy men, who are not sufficiently versed in the law to grasp the exact bearing of the Amendments which were submitted rather hastily to this House. I do not know whether the Attorney-General for Ireland wishes to intervene now in the Debate, but I am sure Irish Members would be glad if they could have his opinion as to the bearing of the Amendment upon Ireland. I should be the last person to do anything in any way weakening the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and its branches throughout the United Kingdom, and I hope the Amendment which has been accepted will not have this effect. I really do not think it will have that effect in Scotland, but I have no knowledge of the effect of the Amendment in any country outside Scotland. I am grateful to the House for the patience and courtesy with which they have given me a hearing. I claim, without fear of
contradiction, that veterinary science is becoming of more and more importance to the food supply of this country and increased production—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That subject is not in order on the Third Reading.

Captain ELLIOT: I had hoped that in a Bill dealing with the status of veterinary surgeons, I might have been allowed to refer to that question. I think qualified veterinary surgeons have served this country well in the past, and will deserve better of the country in the future. For these reasons, I have much pleasure in heartily supporting the Third Reading of this Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: I do not quarrel with the hon. and gallant Member in regard to the extremely interesting dissertation he has given us, dealing with a large number of subjects with the meaning of which hon. Members are not very well acquainted. I want to say how strongly I support the Third Reading. I cannot help thinking that we should like to hear from the Minister of Agriculture some answer to the criticisms which were made by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss) earlier in the Debate. It does appear to me that it is only right that men attending veterinary courses of instruction at universities such as Leeds, Belfast, and Aberdeen, which have established Chairs and which give instruction in veterinary science, should be given degrees without having to attend a further course at one of the five colleges which are at present entitled to give degrees. Every year more and more work has to be done by veterinary surgeons, and more is expected of them by the Ministry of Health. It is of the utmost importance that there should be a sufficient number of veterinary surgeons qualified to diagnose the diseases of animals and to ensure prevention against the spread of diseases. It is of the utmost importance, in the interest of the livestock of this country, that these men should be qualified and that there should be large numbers of them. The Minister of Agriculture should give every possible encouragement to the College in order that the profession may be made as attractive as possible and that a large number should be encouraged to join it. I trust the Bill, which has been described as a modest measure, will improve the position of veterinary surgeons. It is a
Bill which should have been passed many years ago, and I sincerely support it. I hope that the Minister will be able to say a word as to what can be done to induce the Royal College to recognise other universities as being qualified to give degrees.

Major MOLSON: As a county Member interested in agriculture, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do all that he can to further the interests of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I would like also to say a few words on behalf of the unqualified veterinary surgeons. They have in the past done very fine work. I have known many cases in which the unqualified man has been of more use to the owner of horses or the farmer than sometimes the more highly qualified veterinary surgeon. I know that some of my hon. Friends behind me may say, "Oh, oh," but I do think that the unqualified veterinary surgeon has often been more useful in ordinary illnesses than the veterinary surgeon holding a degree. I would also like to say a few words with regard to what the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark-shire (Captain Elliot) has said, and I would refer more particularly to a disease which is known in agriculture as worms in swine. If veterinary surgeons were given better facilities for their investigations, they would be able to do a great deal of good to agriculture in this country. The disease is known to occur a great deal in China, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that hundreds of thousands of pounds would be saved to this country every year if the subject were thoroughly investigated and if pigs which now remain thin and undeveloped could be developed and become fine livestock. Greater facilities for veterinary courses at other universities in this kingdom should be given, and veterinary surgeons should be able to qualify at the Universities of Leeds, and Belfast, and other centres of learning. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will remember that there is a great scarcity of veterinary surgeons in the country and that it would be of great service and in the interest of farmers and livestock if a greater number could be supplied.

Mr. CAUTLEY: The interesting speech of the hon. and gallant Member for
Lanarkshire (Captain Elliot) will have shown the House what a great field there is for the employment and extension of veterinary knowledge. This Bill is brought in by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons for the main purpose of providing funds for the extension of veterinary knowledge and practice. I propose to explain to the House what is the constitution of the Veterinary College, how it acts, and what work it does, because the speech made by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss) is entirely misleading and inaccurate. The Royal Veterinary College depends upon a charter and upon Acts of Parliament, and it comprises all the graduates of five veterinary colleges, namely, the Royal Veterinary College, London, situated at Camden Town, the Royal Veterinary College at Edinburgh, the Glasgow Veterinary College, the Veterinary School at Liverpool University, and the Royal Veterinary College of Ireland, at Dublin. It is quite true that the Royal College itself has no school of teaching. It is an examining body. It is the sole body entrusted with the regulation of veterinary education within the United Kingdom. It prescribes the standard of ordinary education for its members; it fixes the curriculum for some four years at least for all its members; and it conducts the examinations for the degree of the College which confers the title of "veterinary surgeon." With regard to the two first, they are common to the Royal College Physicians and Surgeons in the sphere of medicine and surgery. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has the further advantage—it is an advantage not only to themselves but also to the public—that it is the sole examining body, and can ensure the general elevation of the standard that is necessary for its members before they can take a degree. It is entirely inaccurate and misleading to say that the other educational bodies are not recognised. At least, three of these constituent bodies give degrees for veterinary science, but along with their own course the student pursues a course prescribed by the Veterinary College. He goes through the two examinations, and he gets the scientific degree of his own college or university and the degree from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons which qualifies him for practice as a veterinary surgeon in the country. The College
always has been and still is ready to enter into arrangements with any university or college conferring scientific degrees to carry out a similar arrangement with them. I believe the hon. Member for Oldham is entirely misinformed as to the position of the Leeds University. I gather that what he told us he obtained from an article in the "Times" this morning. Leeds University has an agricultural course extending over five years, and the science of veterinary surgery is taken as part of that course. There is no particular degree for veterinary science. Leeds University have never complained of any action on the part of the Royal Veterinary College which would be only too glad that students taking the agricultural course there should be examined at Leeds with a view to becoming members of the Veterinary College in the same way as is done at other Colleges.
The main object of this Bill is to provide funds for the extension of the public work which has been done in supplying veterinary surgeons, in getting men to join the College, in keeping education up to the highest possible point, and in securing young fellows to prepare themselves to take on this important work. The Bill was brought in before the War on four different occasions, and failed to get through because of want of time. It is not due to any fault on the part of the promoters that Parliament has not enabled them to get the necessary funds long ago. It is quite true that some effort is now being made by Government, by training men who have come back from the War for the veterinary profession. They have given maintenance grants to some 300 or 400 men who are now taking the veterinary course with a view to becoming members of the College. This Bill is designed mainly to get funds from the registered members of the College itself, and does not ask for public assistance, although, in my opinion, public funds might well be used for the advancement of veterinary science. I regret it has been deemed necessary to insist on the Clause dealing with the means for enforcing payment of the annual subscription. Another Clause of the Bill provides for giving recognition to veterinary surgeons who have practised as such for the last 20 or 30 years. There has been some doubt whether, under the Acts under which they were admitted,
they are entitled to be described as veterinary surgeons, and that doubt is put at rest by this Bill. The only other enacting Clause is the one which prevents persons associating themselves together for the purpose of carrying on a veterinary practice without being subjected to the same penalties for breaches of law and discipline as private practitioners.
This Bill does not deal in any way with the unregistered practitioner. It has nothing to do with him. It is still open to any practitioner to carry out any operation he likes and to give any drugs he pleases to any animal, and this Royal College has no means of preventing it so long as he does not contravene the law relating to cruelty to animals. He may practise, in, fact, on any animal to his heart's content, whether he be registered or unregistered. The only power the College has is that the man who carries on such practice or performs such operations shall not hold himself out to the public, or be held out as a duly-qualified veterinary surgeon, and that, I submit, is necessary in the interests of veterinary surgeons themselves, and doubly so in the interests of the public. If the public go to a veterinary surgeon, who describes himself as such, and if they are led to believe that he is duly qualified as such, they have a right to expect that they will get the services of a man who is what he purports to be, a duly-qualified veterinary surgeon who has gone through the usual course and knows his business as far as examination and education can insure that. Both in the interest of the public and of the veterinary practitioner, it is desirable that men who have failed in their examinations, or who have never tried to pass, or who may be ignorant both of veterinary science and practice, should not hold themselves out as duly-qualified veterinary surgeons. Those who at present perform minor operations, castrators or others are not touched. They can still continue to carry on their necessary part of the work of agriculture, as they have done in the past. They cannot be touched under this Bill, and, that being so, I ask the House to give this beneficent Measure a Third Reading in the interests, not only of veterinary surgeons and veterinary science, but of the public generally.

Mr. LANE-FOX: I desire to add my voice to that of those who support this
Bill, which, as the hon. and learned Member has just said, is one that is very much overdue and is very badly needed. As anyone who sits for an agricultural constituency will know, there has been considerable anxiety about this Bill in certain towns, where many people were afraid that their practice was going to be interfered with. There has also been considerable anxiety among farmers throughout the country, that they might be deprived of the services of these men, who, as has been said, are invaluable and indispensable for agriculture. That has naturally caused a considerable amount of unrest among farmers in many districts, and I am glad that it has been cleared up by this Debate, and that it is fully understood that this Bill will have no effect of that kind. I think we all realise the absolute necessity for maintaining these so-called unqualified veterinary surgeons, although it is certainly right and necessary that they should not be allowed to describe themselves as possessing qualifications which they do not possess. Anyone who realises what the agricultural districts would be without these men will see how fatal it would be if anything in this Bill were to interfere with them. As everybody knows, there are many extremely good and clever practitioners who may have never been through this course, but have built up a practice largely through their own experience, by working under other men, and gathering knowledge. Many of them have not had the opportunity or the financial means of taking a course in veterinary science, but we cannot do without them in rural districts, and I hope that any anxiety they may have had will now have been dispelled. When we realise the extent to which the livestock of this country is necessary to the wellbeing of rural districts, and how very much it is being improved every day, it becomes more obvious how necessary it is that we should have the best veterinary advice, and therefore I hope that it may be possible in the future for more veterinary surgeons to go through this course and become qualified. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent that.
I understand that a statement was made, when I happened not to be in the House, by an hon. Member whom I do not now see present, which suggested that
there was some conflict between the University of Leeds and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I happen to know a good deal about the University of Leeds, and I could assure the hon. Member, if he were here, that there is absolutely nothing, as far as I know, in that statement. No such conflict exists. The most amicable relations have always existed between the University and the College. It is true that, as a part of the agriculture course of the University, there is a course in veterinary science, as it is most necessary that anyone embarking on an agricultural career should possess veterinary knowledge. In that, however, there has been the closest co-operation and the most amicable relations between the University of Leeds and the College, and I do not think that any such statement ought to be made. I cordially welcome this Bill, and I am sure it will be a very useful and valuable measure. It has the great advantage, to which reference has already been made, that it is one of the few measures which come before the House in which someone is not asking for money from the State. When people only ask permission to tax themselves, it is an object which ought to be regarded as valuable.

Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I desire to support the Third Reading of this Bill. I think it will be generally admitted that the Debate has been of considerable interest and will go a long way to increase the interest all over the country in the possibilities of veterinary science. I look upon this measure as only a step in the direction of the objects which we all have in view. No one can have listened to the interesting speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lanarkshire (Captain Elliot) without recognising the great potentialities that there are in veterinary science in connection with the future well-being of this country. I sincerely trust that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, having obtained the additional powers which will be conferred upon them by this Bill, will not be altogether satisfied with that, but will come to this House before very long and ask for more. It is a matter of the highest importance that those who are called "unqualified"—I think "unregistered" would be a better term, for we should be sorry to entrust the life or the treatment of even a small animal to the
hands of a person who was wholly unqualified—I venture to hope that one effect of this Bill will be to induce the Veterinary College to endeavour to raise the standard of education of those who are at present regarded as unregistered or unqualified practitioners. It may not be possible to require that the ordinary practitioner, who is called in on a farm to look after the health of some particular animal, shall be as fully qualified as those who call themselves veterinary surgeons under this Bill, but it seems to me that there might be some intermediate stage, from which those who are at present unregistered and unqualified, and particularly the younger men who enter the profession, might be able to raise themselves by further instruction at a university or some other place of higher education, until they eventually obtain the membership of the Royal College itself. I hope that that will be one of the effects of this Bill. The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) gave us a very interesting account of the constitution of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, with which I was not altogether familiar. He pointed out that its main function is, as is here stated, to conduct examinations. I see that it also conducts prosecutions and inquiries. I should like to point out that, in the very first Clause of the Preamble of this Bill, there are indications of a worthy ambition on the part of the College, which we hope will be gradually fulfilled. It goes on to say:
and generally to carry out such other objects or duties as may be considered beneficial to the veterinary profession and necessary for the promotion of the art and science of veterinary medicine and surgery.
That being, as I take it, the main object of the existence of this College, we may hope it will do all that it possibly can to promote the education of all those persons who are at present unregistered, and are called unqualified, and to help them to become capable of becoming ordinary members of the College. An hon. Member has said that the University of Leeds grants a degree in veterinary science which is accepted by the Veterinary College of Surgeons, and enables them to register a man as thoroughly qualified. He spoke of the College giving a degree. The College does not give a degree. All it does is to license a man to practise as a registered practitioner on the results of the education he has re-
ceived at one of the other colleges, or one of these universities. The subject of veterinary surgery is becoming more and more important every day. Science is helping it very much. Indeed, I look forward to a great future for this College of Veterinary Surgeons in the endeavour to raise, as far as we possibly can, the standard of education of all those persons who are in any way connected with it, either as registered or unregistered surgeons. The College does not ask for any subsidy or grant, and with the limited means at its disposal, at the utmost some £3,000 or £4,000 a year, it will be unable in the near future to do all the good work which possibly lies before it, and I should be one of the first, when I see the College entering upon this new departure, to which I look forward, to render any assistance I possibly can to enable it to obtain even larger grants.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Perhaps I ought to explain to the House, as I explained to the Committee, what the attitude of the Government is to this Bill. It is not a Government Bill, but a private Member's Bill. At the same time, not only have we no objection to it, but we very much hope it will pass into law. It is a matter of really great importance from the agricultural standpoint, that the status of the Royal Veterinary College should be improved, that it should have greater power to carry out examinations, to enforce discipline, and generally to raise the status of the veterinary profession, and in order that it may be able to do that, it is a matter of great importance that it should have the necessary powers. It does not come here in forma pauperis asking for a Government grant, it only comes with the practicable proposal of taxing itself. It seems to me this is a Bill in all respects desirable and one therefore which should have the support of the Government in general and the Minister of Agriculture in particular. I was very much interested in the very able speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Elliot). With its general object I entirely agree. It is a matter of the greatest importance that we should raise the status of veterinary science and that we should not only have more qualified practitioners, but that by the application of research we should raise the general level of knowledge. I have often said, not speaking specially on this subject but speaking about agriculture and its future
generally, that whatever legislative measures the Government may propose—and I am engaged with a very big measure just now—and whatever the conditions we may lay down, the future of agriculture will depend principally upon the increase of knowledge, upon raising our knowledge to a higher degree and spreading it among practical farmers. Veterinary knowledge, having regard to the nature of agriculture in this country, is of the greatest importance, because we are, and whatever happens we are bound to remain largely a stock raising country, and the value of our flocks and herds is very large indeed. We have been called the stud farm of the world. We export the best cattle, sheep and so forth all over the world and make very large sums of money by so doing, and it is therefore a matter of the greatest importance that in dealing with the flocks and herds and tending them we should have the very best possible veterinary science to apply every day to their use.
The history of this question is roughly this. Veterinary science was very badly neglected for a great many years and was in a very poor way indeed when the Royal College was founded. Practically all the improvements which have been made—and they will certainly go much further—have been due to the action of the Veterinary College. So far as improvements have been made we have to thank the Royal Veterinary College, for all along it has been in a weak position. It has not had the revenue to enable it properly to carry out its duties. There have been doubts as to who were and who were not entitled to be registered as veterinary practitioners. Its whole position has been altogether too indebted and because this Bill, first of all, without coming on the State coffers, provides an adequate revenue for the College to carry out its duties, and secondly, clears up a certain amount of doubt and difficulty as to the status of veterinary practitioners generally, I think it is worthy of the support of the House. I was very glad at the earlier stages to be able to allay those doubts and that misapprehension that arose as to the future position of the unregistered practitioners. However many qualified veterinary surgeons we may have, the great bulk of the every-day work of the farmer will have to be carried out in the future as in the past by the unregistered man, and we have not the slightest desire to interfere with his practice provided
always that he does not pretend to be a fully qualified man, and that is secured by the Bill and nothing else. There is no attempt to interfere with his daily work. Again, I think it is a great advantage that we have been able to clear up that difficulty with regard to the bye-law with respect to which I made a statement this afternoon. We do not want to cause misapprehension or panic among the unregistered men or among the farmers who now make use of their services.
Reference has been made to Clause 4. It is now quite properly an offence against the rules of the College for a man practising veterinary science to make himself out to be a veterinary surgeon when he is not. As the law stands there is nothing to prevent two or three of these people combining together and calling themselves a company or something of that sort and then defying the regulations of the College and conducting themselves in a manner which would not be permitted to an individual, thereby breaking the rules and discipline of that profession. Clause 4, concerning which a certain amount of misapprehension was felt, merely deals with that position and renders a company of individuals carrying on their practice in that way amenable to the same discipline as an individual. I do not pretend that this is a very great Bill. I do not say that it covers the whole field by any means. It may be necessary for the Government to come to the House for wider powers in the future, but I do not wish to prejudge that question one way or the other. It is because I believe that so far as it goes the Bill is a good Bill, and because I believe it is necessary and will to some extent add to that scientific knowledge in agriculture that is so important that on behalf of the Government I ask the House to give it a Third Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third Time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — HEALTH RESORTS AND WATERING PLACES BILL.

Not amended (in the 'Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time.—[Colonel Burn.]

4.0 P.M.

Commander BELLAIRS: This Bill, while it does not raid the State coffers
which, as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Boscawen) said, was one of the advantages of the last Bill, does raid the ratepayers' pockets. I had hoped that my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Burn) who is in charge of the Bill would have said something about it. I do not accuse my hon. and gallant Friend of smuggling the Bill through the House. It was due to his own tactful way and his popularity probably that it has not been discussed. He did his best on the First Reading to draw attention to the Bill, when you, Mr. Speaker, called the Bill and he went through a number of tactical manœuvres, so that the House became interested, and finally presented the Bill. The House of Commons, apparently, is unanimously in favour of this Bill, but it is said that when the House of Commons is unanimous the House is invariably wrong. From that point of view I ask the House carefully to read the Bill and to give some little attention to it. There are three reasons which I have against the Bill. I do not know whether in the first place it will not lead to ligitation, because the Bill enables any Borough or any Urban Council to advertise throughout the country the nature of their borough or district as a health resort. I note the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Major Prescott) and the hon. Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman) are backing the Bill. Will Tottenham and Finchley be able to advertise throughout the country as health resorts? If so, perhaps it will lead to litigation, because the ratepayers will have something to say on the matter. Let us have the point of view of the medical Members of the House, for it might be dangerous to give powers to Councils to advertise all over the country the merits of their respective places as health resorts, which may not be health resorts at all.
The second reason I have against the Bill is the question of expenditure. My hon. and gallant Friend limits the expenditure to a penny rate. What has been the history of rates when limits have been fixed? The limits have been abandoned. There is no reason why this penny rate should not become a shilling rate or a ten shilling rate in future. I am surprised that my right hon. Friend, the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is not on the war path on this question, seeing that it will lead
to increased expenditure and consequent increased rates. I had expected him to rise and denounce the Bill. His silence is enough to make gods weep and dogs bark. My third objection is that the Bill provides for defacing the landscape by ugly seascapes. I do not say that many of these watering places are not beautiful, but the Borough Councils have done their best to desecrate "where every prospect pleases and only man is vile." They all seem to go in for a common pattern in building piers, promenades, concert halls, and so forth. Take Eastbourne, which was owned by the Duke of Devonshire. The Borough Council desired to have trams all over the place, but the late Duke of Devonshire refused to allow them, and now they bless the memory of the late Duke who prevented them from having ugly tramways all over the town.
Another objection to the Bill is that the work is already done. The advertising of these places is done by railway companies, hotels, and private bodies of individuals. Why should they be relieved of the expense which they formerly incurred? As matters stand we know the constitution of Borough Councils. We know that Borough Councils are democratic institutions and are cunningly devised to enable the minority to rule. In places like Brighton there is really a large majority of the residential population which does not want to encourage all these so-called attractions as the borough council is doing. The borough councils consist largely of shopkeepers and hotel proprietors, and they want to advertise these places and to attract large crowds which will enable them to sell their goods. Therefore, they wish to advertise at the ratepayers' expense. It is said that, "Sweet are the uses of adversity." It might well be said, "Sweet are the uses of advertisement" in the eyes of all these borough councils, which consist so largely of shopkeepers. A few years ago the Sultan of Morocco started a newspaper "in order that his praises might be fully sung." Apparently the idea of these borough councils is to be able to obtain powers to advertise in every newspaper, and to shove up placards all over the land, spoiling the beauty of every landscape, in order that their praises may be duly sung. I cannot see why many of these ugly seaside places, which have been made ugly by man, and which were beautiful as nature
made them, cannot live on their own demerits, instead of further efforts being made to turn them into pocket editions of Swedenborg's Hell.
Most of these places are places of resort for profiteers. They are open to the rich and the poor in the same sense that the Ritz Hotel is open to the rich and the poor. They are becoming more expensive to live in, and more and more difficult for poor people to go to. On these two main grounds, that the expense is going to be borne by the ratepayers, and that it may lead to litigation, and on the third ground which I have stated, I hope the House will fully discuss the merits and demerits of the Bill. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will tell us what are the merits of the Bill. He has not done so. I doubt if the Bill was discussed in Committee. It went through the Committee as well as this House without any discussion. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will explain whether this expense would stop at a 1d. rate, who are the people he thinks will use this Bill, and in what way they propose to use it when they have got these powers from Parliament.

Major Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Like other hon. Members, I was not fully acquainted with the conditions of this Bill when it was introduced. I think it a most interesting Bill, and a Bill on which, before the House passes it, we ought to hear the views of the eminent Members who represent the various watering places I would like to hear not only what the hon. Gentleman (Colonel Burn) who has introduced this Bill thinks about it, but I would like to know the views of the hon. Gentleman (Sir Philip Sassoon) who sits beside him, and who represents another charming residential constituency. I am told that even distinguished Members of the Government are closely affected by the Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) knows more about the Bill than he is prepared to tell us. But I think that the Bill may land us in very considerable difficulties. I am very much surprised that when the Bill was in Committee no one moved an Amendment to define what is a health resort or a watering place. I notice that the promoters of the Bill have got a Clause to tell us what a borough is not. What a borough is or is not is common knowledge, but what a
health resort is or is not is not so plain. I am not sure that we ought not to have the Bill re-committed in order that this question may be raised.
I can quite understand that to a House which contains so many representatives of the legal profession as this House does a Bill which involves so much doubt will be a perfect godsend, but from the point of view of the ratepayers and of the ordinary person we ought to know where we stand. I want to know whether if Torquay is advertised as a watering place, and if I go there in the hope of obtaining water and am only able to obtain salt water, shall I have an action against the borough council? From the point of view of economy this should be made clear. At the same time I join issue with my hon. and gallant Friend (Commander Bellairs) who opposed this Bill. I am entirely in favour of giving to town councils the widest opportunity of adding to the beauty of our more dull towns by the advertisements which they put up. Many of us, owing to the high cost of living, are unable to take such holidays at watering places and health resorts as previously we were able to take, and those of us who are not able to afford to go to Brighton, Torquay and Folkestone, are going to be able to see, at the Underground Railway stations, representations of these charming places, representations such that if we knew Torquay perfectly well, we would hardly recognise it for a single moment. Those advertisements give us great pleasure when the train breaks down on the Underground Railway. As we stand hanging on to a strap and looking up to the roof, I do not recognise Torquay, but I recognise something attractive. That is adding to the gaiety of our life, and it is providing employment for numbers of our artists, who will be engaged in carrying out those designs. Owing to the extension of advertisements I have heard it said that, on a modest computation, by the enormous Excess Profits Duty the Chancellor of the Exchequer is providing employment for at least 80 per cent. of the artists, who are at work in producing those pictures which otherwise would not be used. We shall have artists employed, if that is the right name to give them, or, at any rate, draughtsmen and billposters, and we may even be able to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put on an advertisement tax.
It is said that there should not be advertisements in the newspapers. Why should there not be such advertisements, framed with all the elaboration of which my hon. and gallant Friend is capable? They would be far better than some of the things that are put in the newspapers. If it is said that it is a question of fiction, what does that matter? I think the Bill has many merits. None the less, I should very much like to know what is a watering place and what is a health resort, and whether a borough has to be both a watering place and a health resort, in order to be able to incur expenditure under the Bill? What will be the position of a borough council which advertises a borough as a health resort or watering place, there being no definition in the Bill, and then one of the ratepayers, a crusty and cantankerous person like my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, objects to reasonable expenditure and seeks to have the town council surcharged with the cost of advertising? Will an action lie against the town council and against the clerk of the town council, or will it lie only against the person who gave the order for the insertion of the advertisement in the newspaper? Or do the promoters consider that the Bill in itself, by its very general character, will be a complete defence to any such action? If ever my hon. and gallant Friend leaves this House, I think he will find himself made honorary Mayor of Torquay for the rest of his days, and all hon. Members of this House would hate to think there was any possibility of financial trouble to mar the pleasure of the end of an industrious career.

Colonel BURN: This is a simple Bill, which is there for everybody to read, and to see what is intended by it. I do not intend to be drawn into any legal points. I am not a lawyer, but only a plain soldier. None the less, I have at heart the welfare of the constituency I represent, and also the welfare of all those towns where health and recreation can be found, and where surely the beauties of nature are sufficient to attract everyone who desire a holiday and to regain strength, rather than to go abroad to be robbed. As to the definition of "health resort," it is not necessary for me to enter into any details. A health resort is a place to which the medical profession of this country would order sick people in order that they might recuperate. People
who find themselves in that state have only to go to the constituency I represent and they will have their health restored. In asking for this Bill, I am only asking for powers which were given in 1909 to Ireland in the Health and Watering Places Act. Everybody knows that the essence of modern business is advertisement, and when the amenities and advantages of health resorts and watering places are advertised in the papers, then benefit comes to those places, and I am certain everyone resident or connected in any way with business shares that benefit from the visitors. We have places of great beauty and many attractions, and I can assure my hon. Friend who spoke last that he will find baths of all descriptions. As to the question of expense on the rates, surely we all know that local authorities are not appointed for life, and the ratepayers will very soon decide whether the money is well spent or not. Is it not right that those who come to our country should know from advertisements what places they should go to so as to get all they desire in scenery and recreation. Private advertisements achieve a certain amount of result, but advertising on a large scale by the town will benefit the place to the greatest possible extent. This bill is desired by everybody. I have not received a single communication other than those backing the Bill. Town Councils and District Councils have approved of it, as they believe it will increase the prosperity of the towns, which to-day more than ever it is desirable to bring about. Prices are high, and when people find difficulty in getting things going again do we not wish to bring to the towns the greatest possible patronage from those who wish to visit resorts and enjoy the scenery. I think there is everything in this measure to recommend it to the House. We know that much has been done in all our towns of this nature in order to provide the amusements that are desired by the people, and much money has been spent, and surely each town is worthy of getting a reasonable return for the money that has been laid out. After all, it is the ratepayers' money, and the ratepayers would like to see money come back into their town for what has been already laid out. I think there is every reason why this measure should be passed.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down described himself as a plain soldier, and he represents a health resort. I also represent a health resort and watering-place, but it is not necessary in order to go to a health resort that it should have anything to do with water. I feel sure that it would be a very good thing if the opportunity were given to local authorities to advertise their towns to the extent of a penny rate. The penny rate is recognised in many other directions as well, for we have had it in housing and other matters. It has been rightly said that you cannot live now without advertisement. One hon. Member said you only advertise the expensive places, but you also advertise how cheaply you can live at watering-places, and I cannot see that there is any objection to the Bill. After all, the members of the Council are elected at stated intervals, and there is an opportunity to turn them out if they spend money in the wrong direction. I think the Bill will enable a rising town to secure a larger clientèle and to improve their prospects as a town, and I therefore think the House would be well advised to give this measure a Second Reading.

Sir J. D. REES: My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Burn) may very fairly claim, I think, that his Bill is as clear as possible, and there can be no doubt whatever what it is he wants, for it is clearly provided that any borough or any urban district council may advertise itself as a health resort and a watering-place, and I think any hon. Member of this House who did not claim that his own constituency came under that heading would be very unlikely to be re-elected and undeserving of re-election. But I do not think this Bill is really a good subject for precedent. It is the function of this House to add something permanently to the burdens of the country; it is for that very purpose that the Friday sitting exists. I would agree with every argument of my hon. and gallant Friend if I could accept the principle of his Bill, and I hope he will not think my opposing his Bill will in any way break in on the most friendly relations of a lifetime, but when he said that councils come and councils go, and that a council which imposes a rate does not live for ever, he forgets that the evil which
they do lives after them. When once they have imposed a rate, you never can get it off. We have seen in this House penny rates for libraries, and in the very height of the War, when the country was assuming every day more and more staggering burdens, we actually had Bills coming forward to raise them to twopence. Upon the model of Ireland, that well-known exemplar of everything that is legal and law-abiding, we are asked to give powers for the imposition of a penny rate in boroughs in England, Scotland and Wales. I really must part company with my hon. and gallant Friend here. Some of us would profit by this. Of course, a Member who represents a city which has the bright title of the "Queen of the Midlands," for instance, no doubt might profit by this; but, even if that is so, for my part. on every occasion I would get up here and vote against giving the council of my own constituency the power to impose any more rates than are absolutely inevitable. Cheltenham, Leamington, Bath, Torquay and other places—I am not really going to speak for any places of this special character, but, power can only be given if it is given to all. You may have a town of a particular character which is always ready to grab some place on the coast, and to advertise that little bit of land on the coast which is near the parent town, and impose a heavy rate on all the inhabitants of the whole town, at a time when everybody in and out of it is suffering under a load of taxation, which they are only willing to bear for the benefit of the whole country.
This Bill was introduced by three Members, two of whom sit for Middlesex. I should not have thought that Middlesex, amongst its many merits, was famous for health resorts and watering places. I have never come across them, and where the health resorts and watering places in Middlesex are I really do not know. As to what is a health resort or not must be merely a matter of opinion. For instance, there is Torquay, which is eminently a health resort. Many would say it is a most unhealthy resort, because of the relaxing nature of the climate. My hon. and gallant Friend must forgive me, but every man in a matter of this kind must speak from his own experience, and I protest that a day in the bright, bracing climate of the Midlands is worth a year in the damp, relaxing
climate of the South Devonshire Coast, which is admirable for invalids, but most unsuited to those who are in the most robust health. It is with the utmost regret that I find myself opposing any Bill introduced by my hon. and gallant Friend, whom I regard as far more than a Parliamentary character, but I do believe, with all my heart, that almost every Friday this House sits, it sits not but, to adapt the words of the Psalmist, it does mischief. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quote it fully!"] I could quote all the passage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."]—but I have some regard for the feelings of the House. At present there is no function that any Member in any part of this House can perform which is so valuable as that of checking expenditure. It is no use to say that this is merely a rate. A rate comes out of one pocket and a tax comes out of the other; but both pockets of individuals are being rapidly emptied with the connivance of, and, on Friday, with the absolute encouragement of the House of Commons. I regret very much that I cannot support my hon. Friend.

Mr. HINDS: I support this proposal very heartily, and let me say why I intervene. I happen to be chairman of the Association of Health Resorts and Watering Places of the country. They are heartily supporting this Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Obviously!"] This Bill is optional. We do not make places spend if they do not wish to do so, but they are given the right if they wish to spend. At the present moment Blackpool has this power to spend. If Blackpool, why not Scarborough and other places. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not Manchester?"] Certainly, Manchester if it wishes to, and other places. I am very much surprised at the talk indulged in in opposition to this Bill. Hon. Members have not read the Bill. Before the War, in July, 1914, we invited a large number of visitors from France and Belgium to visit our watering-places and health resorts. They went back to advertise the attractions of these places, and to bring people from the Continent to this country. It is not proposed to spoil the beauty of these places, but to advertise them in the steamships that come from America and so on. Those with whom I am associated strongly support this Bill, and desire to give the option to the
councils to spend this money if they are desirous of so doing.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I find myself in temporary disagreement with certain of my hon. Friends who say that the ratepayers ought not to bear the burden of advertising their own health resorts and watering-places. I am of opinion that that is exactly what they ought to bear. I have known of many attempts to advertise these places. They have been made by certain individuals, probably prominent tradesmen in the health resort or watering-place, and the bulk of the ratepayers paid nothing whatever towards these expenses. The whole of the ratepayers ought to bear the burden of advertising their own town. It would be very much fairer if the burden were more equally divided. I quite agree with my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hinds) who said that the time had arrived when we should advertise our own watering-places and health resorts. A great deal of advertisement has been given to foreign watering-places and health resorts with the result that great numbers of people have gone from this country to other countries and spent their money there. An opportunity to advertise our places might, and possibly would, bring people from other countries who would spend their money here to the advantage of the community in general. I strongly support this Bill which the hon. Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn) has brought in. Torquay is a very salubrious place which I am very fond of, but there are other places. I represent a place where the air is also very salubrious, and where a great many people find pleasure in spending their summer holidays. If these places were advertised we should not only get more of our own people, but more would come from foreign Countries.
The Isle of Wight advertised a great deal before the War, not through the rates, by individual subscriptions, and a great many people came there from Germany, in fact the hotels were full of Germans. Of course we do not want to attract Germans, but we should be very pleased to receive visitors from those countries which fought side by side with us during the War. An hon. Member stated that the advertisements of certain watering places were very interesting and attracted a large number of people, and Blackpool was mentioned. That town has been
advertised all over London, in fact the Strand is often illuminated by a large advertisement of Blackpool. I have never seen, however, any advertisements of the Southern watering places. We have been told that Blackpool is a very important place for bathing, but I can assure the House that there are many attractive watering places for bathing both for ladies and gentlemen in South Devon. The constituency which I have the honour to represent possesses a beautiful sea front and splendid places for bathing. I strongly urge the House to support this measure.

Mr. C. PALMER: I am very much divided in my mind in regard to this Bill. I have sat here for some time expecting to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, who has so often been the watchdog of the public purse, give us a long and detailed criticism of this Bill. I hope that when I sit down the right hon. Gentleman will give me his guidance and advice, because on these matters of public expenditure his experience is so valuable that it must have a great influence on the minds of young Members like myself. I will not speak too long; I will give him at least five minutes in order that he may place his views before us. I am sure that I shall have him with me when I say that I am strongly opposed to this Bill. We need not only to protect the taxpayer but also to protect the ratepayer. I myself am a great sufferer by the increase in the rates in my district, and, if it were suddenly decided that the neighbourhood of Gower Street were a health resort within the meaning of this Bill, I should suffer considerably, because under the terms of my new contract for my flat every increase in the rates goes on to my rent. Therefore, I have a personal interest in this Bill, but I take a wider view. I believe that if our counties and boroughs would only show broadmindedness in the conduct and development of our health resorts and watering places there would be no need to put a penny on the rates in order to stimulate interest in the show places of this country. Before the War a great deal was done by the railway companies in order to stimulate interest in them. We had advertised what is called "The Cornish Riviera." The railway companies tried to prevent people going abroad and to keep them within our own shores, and a most wonderful work was done without a penny of expense to
the ratepayers. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, will tell me that the railways at this moment are very hard hit, and that they find it very difficult to squeeze the dividend guaranteed by the Government, but I am sure that he will agree with me that these are matters which should be left to private enterprise. If once we give a new licence to local authorities to spend money, we do not know where it will stop. I am quite aware that the more we attract the foreigner here the better for this country and for the good understanding and peace of the world, but at the present time I am not anxious to see Germans once more over-running our watering places and making their guttural noises in places where we want to go. I want England for the English, but at the same time we must put a stop to this sort of thing. It is really preposterous that on a Friday afternoon, when so many indiscreet things are done in this House, a gentleman should come here from Torquay, and, because he wants to benefit Torquay, should ask us to pass a Bill which will allow spendthrift extravagance on the part of the local authorities of the United Kingdom.
If these watering places would only show a better understanding of the needs of visitors, there would be no occasion for the spending of this money. Take the matter of Sunday games. I know that matter does not come within the purview of this Bill, but I am trying to illustrate that there is no need to give these powers if the local authorities will only take a broad-minded human view of things. In one watering-place you find that they will allow golf on Sunday, but nothing on earth will induce them to allow tennis. There are hundreds of thousands of people who only have an opportunity for exercise and recreation at the week-end, and they would go to these watering-places in far larger numbers if they could have the liberty that they desire in regard to Sunday games. I will not touch on the question of bathing. But I say good entertainment and good bands are essential; they are a great humanising influence, and if, instead of giving us imitations of foreign bands with a strong suspicion of German in their brass, they give us good bands, healthy entertainments, good roads, good bathing, and good Sunday games, I believe our English health resorts would soon be over-
flowing with visitors. The cost of travelling to a seaside resort is now almost prohibitive to an English M.P. on £400 a year, but if you are going to authorise this addition to the rates it will be so much more to be extracted from the pockets of visitors. We ought to hear from some Member of the Government how it is proposed to define a watering place. Any place might be so defined by a capricious council—a labour council, for instance, which desired to advertise itself. Of course, newspapers and bill posters would welcome this extravagance, but I do not think it right that, on a Friday afternoon, we should be devoting a great deal of time to a Bill which is not really needed by the country.
Take the case of my own constituency. There yon have a wonderful mountain and most gorgeous scenery. I should strongly object to the local council flaunting its virtues all over the place at the expense of the rates. I have in my pocket at the present moment a piteous plea from the sanitary inspectors, complaining that they are ill-paid and have no security of tenure; the road-men in my constituency too are complaining that they are on starvation wages, and I do not think I ought to support in this House a Bill which will add a penny to the rates for the fantastic purpose of advertising the place while many of my constituents are banging at the doors of the local council for more money. I feel I should not be properly representing them if I voted for this Bill under such circumstances. I hope the House will mark its disapproval of this fantastic legislation. There are many places in this country of which the average Englishman knows nothing. I am in favour of popularising England. I would do anything possible to prevent people going abroad in search of health when there are so many beautiful places at home where it can be obtained. I would support any action in that direction. I think it is a wrong move. It is so easy to put this penny on the rates. As has been already mentioned, we know what it did in the case of the free libraries. I go into the free library, and I see that it is used almost solely for purposes of betting.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"1—Yes. I am not saying a word against the free library, but it means a penny rate, and in many districts people resent it. They take out the most frivolous and stupid books, and
men simply go in to turn over the papers and see who is giving a "nap" or a "spot," or whatever it is. I earnestly say to this House that we are the guardians of the public purse, not only in the matter of the taxes, but of the rates. It is our duty to view with grave suspicion a Bill of this kind, which, I say, is not intended in the interests of the country, but is promoted simply to do good to one or two places whose members are enthusiastically anxious to do the best for them. I hope we shall divide against it, and I hope that my right hon. Friend, the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), will rise, as he usually does when these stupid attempts at wasteful extravagance are put forward, to reinforce what I am saying, and that he and I will tell against this Bill on its Third Reading.

Dr. MURRAY: While the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London is thinking out his speech, I should like to ask one question of the promoters of this Bill. In the Memorandum it is stated that the object is to give the same powers to the County Boroughs of England and Wales as is given to Irish authorities, and further on it says that in its application to Scotland it shall be subject to certain modifications. The Bill, however, as far as I can understand it, does not specifically say that it does apply to Scotland. According to the Memorandum, the object is that it shall apply only to England and Wales. Perhaps, after all, my hon. and gallant Friend thought that the health resorts in Scotland did not need any artificial advertisement, and I quite agree, but sometimes they want to be in the fashion, like the people of England, and to advertise themselves. The men and women who come back from Scotland are sufficient advertisement in themselves. All the same, I should like to know whether Scotland is or is not included in the Bill. Perhaps the Secretary for Scotland will be inclined to say whether it is to be included.

Captain FOXCROFT: As a Member for a constituency which does not need any artificial advertisement, I rise with very great pleasure to support this Bill. My constituents, most unselfishly, have asked me to support it, because they know that there are many places which do need artificial advertisement, to assist them in competing with foreign spas. I know that, unless this Bill is carried, there are many
health resorts that will not be able to carry on.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I should like to ask why the expenses of advertising these so-called health resorts are to be thrown upon the rates. The ratepayers are supposed to benefit by the crowds of tourists who are drawn, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Burn) referred to the advantages which would be obtained by these places through the introduction of tourists. My own experience is that in most of these places a very large majority, at any rate, of the private residents do not want this larger influx of people. Those who are going to make money out of them are the people who should pay, and I do not see why it should not be done, as it perfectly well could be, by the association of tradesmen and others who are going to benefit by it, and in the interests of ratepayers generally, who will not, as a body, make money or get any benefit from the adver-

tisements, I strongly support the opposition to the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I want to raise two points which have not been raised, and to ask those in favour of the Bill for an explanation on the subject. In the first place, it is proposed that boroughs and urban districts only shall be allowed to advertise in this way. It is quite certain that urban districts and boroughs are much larger and have much greater development, but why should not rural districts, which often have far superior attractions to urban districts, be allowed to have the same privilege themselves?

Colonel BURN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 13.

Division No. 135.]
AYES.
[4.58 p.m.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Gilbert, James Daniel
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Baldwin, Stanley
Goff, Sir R. Park
Purchase, H. G.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Rankin, Captain James S.


Barnston, Major Harry
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Barrand, A. R.
Greig, Colonel James William
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Barrie, Hugh Thom (Lon'derry, N.)
Hanna, George Boyle
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Haslam, Lewis
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Henderson Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Holmes, J. Stanley
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Seager, Sir William


Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Seddon, J. A.


Cape, Thomas
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Stanton, Charles B.


Chadwick, R. Burton
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Stewart, Gershom


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sutherland, Sir William


Cope, Major Wm.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'st'r)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Lynn, R. J.
Thorne, G. R.(Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Dawes, Commander
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Waring, Major Walter


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Wason, John Cathcart


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Whitla, Sir William


Duncannon, Viscount
Mallaby-Deeley, Harry
Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.


Edge, Captain William
Mallalieu, F. W.
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Matthews, David
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)
Moles, Thomas
Wolmer, Viscount


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Foxcrolt, Captain Charles Talbot
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.



Galbraith, Samuel
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Parker, James
Colonel Burn and Mr. Hinds.




NOES.


Bottomley, Haratio W.
Herbert, Denis (Hertford, Watford)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Surtess, Brigadier-General H. C.


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.



Cautley, Henry S.
Lorden, John William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mills, John Edmund
Sir Henry Craik and Commander Bellairs.



Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — POOR LITIGANTS EXPENSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

As Amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; to be read the Third time upon Friday next.

Orders of the Day — DUPLICANDS OF FEU-DUTIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Not Amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; to be read the Third time upon Friday next.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL [Lords] AND CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL [Lords].

Ordered, That so much of the Lords Message [24th March] as relates to the Resolution "That it is desirable that the Criminal Law Amendment Bill [Lords] and the Criminal Law Amendment (No. 2) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Joint Com-
mittee of both Houses of Parliament" be now considered [Colonel Gibbs]:

So much of the Lords message considered accordingly.

Resolved, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Resolution.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Orders of the Day — SHERIFFS (IRELAND) [SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES].

Committee to consider authorising of the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of annual sums to under sheriffs and of increased salaries to process servers in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to the offices of sheriff and under-sheriff in Ireland (King's recommendation signified) Monday next.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at Eight Minutes after Five o'clock, till Monday next, 14th June, 1920.